I’m not sure that one really is an issue. Plenty of UK nationals (myself included) who are entitled to Irish passports irrespective of the status of NI (my entitlement arises from before partition!) The EU also appeared kind of keen on the proposal for stateless EU citizenship post Brexit.

It did occur to me that given my UK passport has just run out it might be easier not to bother renewing it and just get an Irish one instead.

City of London wants 5 year deal for stability

Wouldn’t the simplest solution to this be to say that we will not trigger article 50 for 5 years and in the mean time organise ourselves so that we can no go off the Brexit cliff? 🙂

If you like making signs and meeting people…..
http://www.uniteforeurope.org

Except in the last two cases, this relies on ignoring the results of the democratic process

Bu there is little doubt that we need to agree a transition period. Despite what Brexshiteers say, this is not a simple process. Still no harm with a bit of uncertainty ?!?

Except in the last two cases, this relies on ignoring the results of the democratic process

Not sure which cases you are referring to but isn’t a suitable interpretation of the democratic process being that OUT won, but only marginally, and any true government that claims to govern for all has to take into account the almost equal number of IN voters and the same number who didn’t express an opinion?

That would respect the outcome of the democratic public consultation but deliver a deal that doesn’t exclude or alienate people. It would unlikely satisfy the brexopaths or hardline europhiles but would probably be palatable to most in the country.

I realise that such a common sense approach is unlikely to fly with our glorious leaders who are more interested in politics and themselves than making things better, and I’m being rather naive in hoping that they might do some cross-party nationally beneficial thinking on this.

The hardest part would probably be explaining the idea to people without it being distorted by the media and the same bunch of self-serving politicians who produced the mess…….

“We” voted to leave the EU. Period. The reasons given included (rightly or wrongly) immigration and law making. So May is correct when she says that there is/was not such thing as a hard or soft Brexit.

So we have to assume the worst and hope for the best.

And if I was May I would be making it clear that “We” is 30% of the population (or thereabouts) and I am not taking action based on that.

The cries of “what about democracy” would be met with the fact I am representing 70% of the country and the true will of the people.

And people would rightly call BS

It seems to me that the only solution that could possibly satisfy a large proportion of the population would be to marry some token efforts to limit EU immigration, together with continuing EU membership. Corbyn appeared to be proposing the Swiss solution yesterday before he drowned himself out with stupid crap about wage limits. Honestly, that guy is a disaster.

(Yes I know that the swiss aren’t in the EU, but they face essentially the same problem.)

“We” voted to leave the EU. Period. The reasons given included (rightly or wrongly) immigration and law making. So May is correct when she says that there is/was not such thing as a hard or soft Brexit.

As you keep saying but it’s not a formality, Plan A Brexit and time to get real about the options.
Plan B bury head in the sand
Plac C have a contingency when parliament votes no

What does an advisory referendum have to do with “democratic process”?

Was that a serious question cougs?

Parliament won’t vote no. We are leaving the EU. Get used to the idea

teamhurtmore – Member
Was that a serious question cougs?

Parliament won’t vote no. We are leaving the EU. Get used to the idea
THM, I’d be certain if our PM wasn’t in having a second go at skipping asking parliament for some reason she doesn’t share your confidence.

What does an advisory referendum have to do with “democratic process”?

I’d also argue that the democratic process means the only mandate the government has is to deliver the promises made by the winning “official” campaign – “hard” or “soft” definitions becoming irrelevant. So either Vote Leave’s fantasy needs to be delivered in full or the whole game needs to be reconsidered.

Could all those who say we have to leave please clarify the definition of ‘advisory’? I could have sworn blind it was an antonym of ‘binding’ when I was at school.

The government sent us all a document explaining the process. It was 100% clear

The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.
The Government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to remain in the EU.

This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country – a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.

This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.

Which bit of “the Gov will implement what you decide” is difficult to understand?

Ditto, “this is your decision.” If people couldnt be bother to vote or didn’t try to understand the implications then more fool them. (With the obvious caveat, that we are a society were taking individual responsibility is a declining concept.)

May was badly advised in the RP for sure. She should also stop fannying around and put the bill before Parliament. Obviously she will now wait for the CJ decision, but that should not have been necessary.

The 35 million promise makes any result void.

You can’t be voted in on a blatant lie and then say you didn’t mean it.

It took 5 minutes to google that 35(0) million was a lie

if people were fooled by that, then that is there problem

Which bit of “the Gov will implement what you decide” is difficult to understand?

Being a bit unnecessarily rude there THM. It is because I do understand what we decided that I link the official campaigns to the mandate.

We have a referendum. There are official campaigns for each side. The one that wins has a mandate for delivery. That is what we decided so that’s what the Government has to deliver. Not anything else.

No, its everyone’s problem.

And whatever was said it was still, legally, an advisory referendum.

Which bit of “the Gov will implement what you decide” is difficult to understand?[/I]

Seems easy enough, so why haven’t they done it yet then…

GEDA City wants something for nothing. Services are tariff free, the issue is whether EU would block financial advice accross EU border. If that was the case it’s trivial to arrange a fronting organisation or staff up a local sales office. Of course the businesses don’t want to pay for any of that as right now they get it all for free paid for by the taxpayer.

Which bit of “the Gov will implement what you decide” is difficult to understand?

The bit where they didn’t have the authority to make that claim. Y’know, as has been discussed subsequently in the highest courts in the country for the last six months.

A change to the law has to be decided with an act of parliament, an individual government cannot do this alone. It was ever thus.

The demographic that voted resoundingly out often don’t own a computer, THM, and rely on the papers for news and opinion.

It was plastered all over my village on phone boxes , bill boards why would anyone think it wasn’t a blatant lie.
When I asked my mp he still sticks by it.
Why should we believe the bit about leaving the EU?

Cougs, the only question that the courts had/have to discuss was the issue over royal prerogative versus Act of Parliament. They were very clear that there role was not to consider Brexshit itself.

But that does not relate to the simple question – the government was very clear in stating that it would implement the decision – it is not rude to ask which bit of this is difficult to understand. “Which bit do you not understand”, would have been less polite!

b r – they are in the process of doing it and we have a deadline. At the moment, they are waiting for the Court opinion but dear old Theresa is claiming that we are still on track for deadline and Jezza promised (*) that he would not obstruct the vote yesterday

* admittedly he does change his mind on important issues on a rather rapid basis

The one that wins has a mandate for delivery.

Untrue

That is what we decided so that’s what the Government has to deliver. Not anything else.

True. We agree.

I think we can all agree that the Cameron govt reneged on its promise, he resigned the day after the vote, remember. We’ve got a new govt, though of course the Tories were elected on the explicit promise to keep us in the single market.

No it wasnt

They did argue in favour of the single market (with some dodgy logic) but the opening line in the 2015 manifesto was about the fact that people had been ignored in europe and that they would have their say in a referendum.

That has been honoured.

No, the manifesto explicitly promised to protect our position in the single market.

Untrue

Disagree.

These one line responses without supporting basis are easy, aren’t they.

b r – they are in the process of doing it and we have a deadline. At the moment, they are waiting for the Court opinion[/I]

But if she’d just put a bill in front of the Commons (and Lords) she wouldn’t have had a High Court case at all, so I call BS.

She knows in her head & heart that it’s the wrong thing to do, but she knows ‘politically’ that if she doesn’t do it she (and probably the Tories) will be toast – so she’s doing it for that reason, so when the country is stuffed just remember that we didn’t have to do this…

Our plan of action:

We will let you decide whether to stay in or leave the EU

We will legislate in the first session of the next Parliament for an in-out referendum to be held on Britain’s membership of the EU before the end of 2017. We will negotiate a new settlement for Britain in the EU. And then we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave

We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome

Seems pretty clear to me

on the single market, they did say this

But there is much more to do? The EU is too bureaucratic and too undemocratic? It interferes too much in our daily lives, and the scale of migration triggered by new members joining in recent years has had a real impact on local communities? We are clear about what we want from Europe? We say: yes to the Single Market? Yes to turbo- charging free trade? Yes to working together where we are stronger together than alone? Yes to a family of nation states, all part of a European Union – but whose interests, crucially, are guaranteed whether inside the Euro or out? No to ‘ever closer union.’ No to a constant flow of power to Brussels? No to unnecessary interference? And no, of course, to the Euro, to participation in Eurozone bail-outs or notions like a European Army?

But if she’d just put a bill in front of the Commons (and Lords) she wouldn’t have had a High Court case at all, so I call BS.

Indeed, she got caught with her leather pants down there

She knows in her head & heart that it’s the wrong thing to do,

True

but she knows ‘politically’ that if she doesn’t do it she (and probably the Tories) will be toast – so she’s doing it for that reason, so when the country is stuffed just remember that we didn’t have to do this…

Yes, we did. They were elected on the promise to have a vote and to implement the result whatever the outcome. Its not there fault. Its the bloody Brexshiteers and those who voted to leave.

She/the Gov cant be blamed for delivering what they promised but they can be blamed if the screw the process up.

“We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market”

“We will […] safeguard British interests in the Single Market”

Could hardly be more explicit. Glad we’ve got that cleared up. Hardly surprising that May is so evasive as she prepares to jettison a manifesto commitment after never even being elected as PM.

Indeed – what “we want”

Agreed, explicit and clear.

THM – an innocent question (all the best ones are)

It appears the manifesto says have a a vote on EU in/out and also stay in the single market. Assuming the Tories weren’t lying, fibbing or just telling us what they thought we wanted to hear in the hope of being elected, can you envisage a situation where a country wasn’t in the EU but was in the single market?
If you can then I guess the only reading of that manifesto is that is what we voted for (obviously I didn’t but Jamba did I think)

That would meet what the Brexies voted for – they can rejoice in their victory – while keeping most of the benefits of a European trading club keeping the other half of the bite happy(ish). Added bonus – Farage loses that cushy number he’s been on in Brussels.

Captain. Cameron campaigned to stay in and then resigned when he failed. The Referendum changed everything on that issue. Quite simple really.

igm May said on Shophy Ridge THE Single Market IS the EU. So her and my answer is no. The EEA is a market which is not the EU

In other news the Government is considering a levy of £1000 on every EU skilled worker post Brexit, interesting idea. A start but figure is far too low. Should have Singaporean style system where every worker has to pay sufficient tax to cover all service provision fully or have private cover to do so.

May is wrong if she said that.

Are you sure she actually said it and didn’t retract it later?
It’s a bit definite for her.

EDIT: EEA ok for you then? That might work. Does the four freedoms as I recall

Good to see you are acting as her spokesman now Jamba 😉

IGM – tbc, I am not defending Tory policy or their logic (which as I said early was convoluted in this area)

I do not accept the premise in your second line, but leaving that aside.

First step, we need to be clear about what we are talking about. There is a fundamental difference between “access to” and “membership of” the EU single market. Membership comes with obligations – and obligations for some bizarre reason the public are not happy with.

What we are talking about now is “access to”. The four possible frameworks (ignoring the bespoke red white and blue version for a moment) have various levels of access to the single market with membership of the EEA being the closest to the status quo (but still clearly inferior). But and its a big but, that requires FoM and budgetary contributions.

It is blindingly obvious that there is tension between the Gov’s desire to maintain liberalised trade with the EU while also curbing FoM and the reach of the CJEU. The next two years will determine how that tension is resolved.

Lets gets on with it.