Referendum is not legally binding

[Swisaw]

Referendum is not legally binding because it is not a law, which only the parliament has jurisdiction to legislate. The parliament has sovereignty, because of which nothing can compel it. So the final decision to leave or remain depends on the majority vote of the parliament. After referendum, if the majority voted to leave it will be up to the government to ask Parliament to make the final decision. AS the majority of MPs are against leaving EU, they will vote to remain in EU.

 

[paulears]

Sometimes I wonder if you have a grasp on reality.

You are absolutely right on one thing - the referendum is simply a product to quantify public opinion, and has in itself no legal status, as to leave the EU requires a lot of work. The MPs of all parties could vote against the will of the people, but as has happened many times in democracies all over the world, elected officials pay a heavy penalty for doing this. Every MP is elected by constituents who trust them to speak for them. Poorly performing members - in the usual sense, frequently get outed at the next election. So any MP who decides to vote contrary to the will of the people has no career left. The electorate will expect the views of the people - exactly what a referendum is designed to do - to be voted on appropriately, even if against the individual members personal opinion. Indeed, the House of Lords would also be expected to vote appropriately too. There could be a few MPs who vote contrary to the referendum result, but their contribution won't impact the result, and would perhaps be the parting shot for somebody about to retire.

The notion the MPs would defy the people is ridiculous - utterly career destroying, and indicative of the kind of person they really are.

 

[Clinton]

Are we going to have constituency by constituency results? If we don't, it'll be up to individual MPs to decide what the majority feeling is in their constituency. Given it's a close call between the two sides, any MP can claim that local sentiment in his constituency is slightly in favour of Bremain.

 

[Carl "Excel-Expert" Nixon]

Are we going to have constituency by constituency results? If we don't, it'll be up to individual MPs to decide what the majority feeling is in their constituency. Given it's a close call between the two sides, any MP can claim that local sentiment in his constituency is slightly in favour of Bremain.

According to the BBC website there will be local results announced first (it does not say if local equals a constituency or not). These then get summed up at a regional level and then a national level.

When it comes to what Paulears is saying, I dont think it really matters if we get a constituency by constituency result or if we know how our MPs voted in the commons. If, for example, you voted for Brexit and your MP voted against it and blocked it, you will think twice about voting for them in any future elections. In a lot of seats it wont take a large percentage of people doing that to lose the MP their seat.

 

[paulears]

The BBC interviewed some MPs on this very subject - ones where they are passionate about the outcome, but all said they would vote with the people. Not one said they would vote personally. All saying the vote would be on the views of the majority. The BBC also said this.

All the votes will be counted and then added up, with a straight majority needed to provide the result. In answer to some other people's questions, there is no minimum turnout needed. So if, for the sake of argument, only three people voted on the day, if two of them voted to leave, that would be the result.

Seems quite simple - we'll get our local results, but the totals are simply added together.

Actually - when the vote is called - it should be 100%. I'm sure some will want to go out on a bang and vote against, then resign - but that won't impact on the result.

 

[Swisaw]

Sometimes I wonder if you have a grasp on reality.

It is quite obvious brexiters are ignoring the economic harms come to the country by leaving EU. They are sentimental. The only reason they have is that they want to get back their country and don't want to be rulled by EU, which is not true. This country is not rulled by EU because this country has a fair share representation in EU.

It is the experts views like leaders of industry and economy that by leaving EU, this country loses a lot economically at home and becomes weak and isolated abroad. MPs are elected to do what is good for the livelihood of their voters, not to become their priest or psychiatrist.

It is a fact if MPs voted in line with referendum result to leave for the fear of losing their parliamentary seats, they will still lose their seats because of the impact of economic damage on every one. They all become a scapegoat.

So when the house of commons and the lords vote on this issue, they will think about the livelihood of the people, not their emotions. So they have no choice but vote to remain.

 

[Clinton]

If, for example, you voted for Brexit and your MP voted against it and blocked it, you will think twice about voting for them in any future elections..

I don't think you get it.

Let's say Brexit wins with a small margin, say they get 51% of the vote.

Without constituency level results an MP can claim that his particular constituency actually prefers remain. And he'll vote accordingly. He could even be right, we'd never know.

Let's say we have constituency level results....

What you say above makes no sense. Whichever way your MP votes in Parliament, there'll be roughly 50% of his constituency that he'll be upsetting. If I (and people who share my opinions on The Big Issue) don't think twice about voting for this MP again, then the other 50% of voters in our constituency will be thinking twice about voting for him again. Are you saying that whatever he does he loses 50% ?

 

[paulears]

Amazing how personal opinion colours judgement.

If you investigate how the referendum will be counted - this is all faffing around. The result will be the percentage of the population. Very simple. Parliament has also published material that makes it very clear that it would be very unlikely for the Government to ignore the outcome of the referendum.

We will have to wait - there is little point guessing.

 

[Clinton]

@paulears , as I don't publicly offer my personal opinion on the Bremain/Brexit issue, I guess you're referring to someone else.

My point is that no MP need pay a price for voting pro-Brexit or pro-Bremain in Parliament whatever the outcome of the referendum. If so, then the whole country can vote for Brexit but Parliament can decide against it ....or vice-versa.

You use the word "unlikely" which, of course, is not the same as impossible.

 

[paulears]

I meant your opinion on how it will work. While I don;t have too much faith in the politicians, I prefer to believe that they will vote straight. How many can simply walk away from a well paid, his profile job, which is what would happen. The press would out anyone not following the majority.

I agree they don't need to vote the way the people have decided - but MPs have a short shelf life when they upset their voters. Look at MPs who have got this kind of thing wrong before?

 

[Newchodge]

But, Paul, the result is likely to be very close perhaps 2-3% between it. It is therefore impossible for an MP to state that their own constituents voted in or out, leaving it open for them to vote according to their beliefs. Or do you genuinely expect that, if and when a parliamentary vote is taken on whether to leave the EU, there will be virtually 100% support for it? That result would not match the referendum outcome.

 

[The Byre]

Does anyone here seriously think that Lib-Dems or SNP MPs will walk into the Aye lobby?

 

[paulears]

They are not voting in the constituencies - is a cumulative vote - the will of the people, and while local counts will be public - the MPs are in effect rubber stamping the bill. It does mean that in an area with a remain vote overall, the MP will need to vote for exit, or vice versa. No doubt a few will want to exploit it, but I'm confident the result of fudging it would result in a very swift general election, as the heads of all major parties (not sure of the small ones) have declared they will follow the country. People are in all the press and on-line sources, trying last ditch conversions.

I got an "Official information about the Referendum" notice today - which was entitled THE FACTS. Ironically, the small print details that information may be held on servers outside the EEA! It also reveals that the leaflet is from Vote Leave Ltd.
How do we know which is official official information and which is biased official information?

 

[Newchodge]

There is no official official information. there is only information from one side or the other. Who would be able to offer official official information?

 

[Deleted member 59730]

My point is that no MP need pay a price for voting pro-Brexit or pro-Bremain in Parliament whatever the outcome of the referendum. If so, then the whole country can vote for Brexit but Parliament can decide against it ....or vice-versa.

When opinion polls showed 85% of the population against hunting it didn't stop a lot of MPs voting to keep it.

 

[Swisaw]

Does anyone here seriously think that Lib-Dems or SNP MPs will walk into the Aye lobby?

.....and most labour and conservative MPs.

 

[Clinton]

atmosbob, exactly!

It would appear that the majority of MPs favour Bremain. Which is not a problem if the UK votes to remain.... but an obvious issue if we vote to leave. If we vote to leave MPs can, and probably will, go against the nation's preferences. That'll leave Farage, Boris, Gove, IDS and the like furious. And those who voted for Brexit wouldn't be best pleased either.

 

[Newchodge]

To be fair, what will probably happen is that, in the event of a Brexit result, there will be years of furious negotiation resulting in a situation for the UK within Europe which is different to the one we currently have. MP's will then vote to accept that and tell their constituents that they have followed their wishes and established a good position for the UK, which, after all, is their job.

They would be completely off their trollies if they put the revised EU position to another referendum.

 

[Carl "Excel-Expert" Nixon]

I don't think you get it.

Let's say Brexit wins with a small margin, say they get 51% of the vote.

Without constituency level results an MP can claim that his particular constituency actually prefers remain. And he'll vote accordingly. He could even be right, we'd never know.

Let's say we have constituency level results....

What you say above makes no sense. Whichever way your MP votes in Parliament, there'll be roughly 50% of his constituency that he'll be upsetting. If I (and people who share my opinions on The Big Issue) don't think twice about voting for this MP again, then the other 50% of voters in our constituency will be thinking twice about voting for him again. Are you saying that whatever he does he loses 50% ?

These are not hard and fast rules we are talking about here. If brexit won the referendum by a few percent and my MP voted it down, I wouldnt vote for them again on the principle that they are not representing the people. A hell of a lot of people will think that way and make it very difficult for those MPs to win a seat again. If there was a remain vote and they voted Brexit it would be the same. The whole point (IMO) of a referendum is for the country to give parliament a clear instruction - if they ignore the instruction they pay the price at the next election.

Some MPs will no doubt use the excuse you've outlined and other excuses to vote down a Brexit, but I think they will pay the price in the long run. There is a massive distrust in MPs as it is, this would be more than enough for them to be penalised in the next election.

Our MP would have a very difficult job voting down a Brexit because the polls here (Welsh valleys) show a 70% support for a Brexit.

 

[Carl "Excel-Expert" Nixon]

It is quite obvious brexiters are ignoring the economic harms come to the country by leaving EU. They are sentimental. The only reason they have is that they want to get back their country and don't want to be rulled by EU, which is not true. This country is not rulled by EU because this country has a fair share representation in EU.

It is the experts views like leaders of industry and economy that by leaving EU, this country loses a lot economically at home and becomes weak and isolated abroad. MPs are elected to do what is good for the livelihood of their voters, not to become their priest or psychiatrist.

It is a fact if MPs voted in line with referendum result to leave for the fear of losing their parliamentary seats, they will still lose their seats because of the impact of economic damage on every one. They all become a scapegoat.

So when the house of commons and the lords vote on this issue, they will think about the livelihood of the people, not their emotions. So they have no choice but vote to remain.

That is a daft statement. To counter that, it is quite obvious that "remainers" are ignoring the economic harms of staying in the EU.

1. We have the EU signing up to TIPP, an agreement so powerfully in favour of the US that it has our government running around headless chickens to protect its self and the NHS from their clutches.

2. We have the fact that the EU is about to give China special trading status giving them free run of our market places and we only have to look at the effect they have had on the steel industry to see how that is bad idea (it is probably good for the poorer EU nations but not us). China will be attacking the car market next

3. We have the fact that the only trading area that is growing slowing than the EU is Antarctica.

4. We have the fact that some EU countries have 24% unemployment, 50% youth unemployment and the EU does nothing about it.

5. We have 7 poorer nations waiting to join the EU. If they join it will have a massive impact on the EU finances and as one of the richer nations we will be picking up the tab.

6. Half the countries in the EU want their own referendum. 45% of Dutch people said they would vote out if there was a referendum today, that is twice what it was for the UK at a similar stage. What happens to the EU finances if a richer nation pulls out and we dont? More tab picking up I suspect.

Your views on any of the above are irrelevant in this thread (there are other threads where they are being debated) - the point of listing them here is to show that there are real economic threats of staying in the EU and that the economic risks of staying or going is a very two way street. Camp remain would love you to believe that a vote for remain would mean "More of the same" but it clearly isnt.

 

[The Byre]

I wouldnt vote for them again on the principle that they are not representing the people. A hell of a lot of people will think that way and make it very difficult for those MPs to win a seat again. If there was a remain vote and they voted Brexit it would be the same.

When the death penalty was abolished, there was uproar! It altered nothing. The death penalty was abolished anyway. The SNP had all sorts of internal strife over gay marriage and membership of NATO - but gay marriage was introduced and the principle of NATO membership was adopted.

The whole point (IMO) of a referendum is for the country to give parliament a clear instruction - if they ignore the instruction they pay the price at the next election.

It is fundamental to the very core of our democracy that NOBODY is permitted to instruct a member of parliament.

We may lobby them, we may lean on them, the party whips may cajole them. We may demonstrate, shout at them, call them rude names or even heckle them when they try to speak in public. But when they leave the House and enter the division lobby, they are alone with their own consciences and thoughts, interests and hopes, as they choose between Aye and No.

Never ever forget that an MP is a representative and NEVER a delegate!

As for paying the price at the next election - time and time again, past parliamentary voting record of an MP, seldom, if ever effects the majority of voters. People vote for parties and seldom for individuals.

 

[Carl "Excel-Expert" Nixon]

As for paying the price at the next election - time and time again, past parliamentary voting record of an MP, seldom, if ever effects the majority of voters. People vote for parties and seldom for individuals.

While agreeing with you I have a feeling this maybe an exception to the rule. I can't remember a time when so many people were this deeply involved in politics or opinionated about it. There have been a lot of passions inflamed by all this debating and I think people will hold a grudge come election time. While what you say is true, the UK voter is also not above protest voting - without protest voting would UKIP even exist today?

 

[paulears]

The absolute and documented last minute interest in getting on the electoral register is proof enough that people are interested - these are also people who never normally vote - for whatever reason, and I'm seeing in schools awareness of politics for the first time in the 'average' student. They don't always understand, and treat it as a personal endorsement, like voting on X Factor, but the underage ones are pretty annoyed they don't have a voice, and the 6th formers are making sure they can have a voice.

The notion that MPs are always free to vote independently makes me roar with laughter. What exactly do whips do?

My own MP refused to support me, because although he understood and appreciated my problem - he could not support an early day motion (not that they do anything other than raise profiles) because his own department had caused the problem, so he could only support the Governments position as a minister.

Did the Prime Minister not set in motion the idea that in this referendum, each minister could promote their own opinion? Once the result is known, any attempt to intervene is simply kiss of death - and few are willing sacrifice their career, even if it means voting against their own opinion.

Whatever happens - we live with the vote. I did also read that there could be an issue with funding the referendum if the MPs ignore it - spending all that money and then defaulting from the democratically produced result might end up in court - which would be interesting.

 

[Swisaw]

That is a daft statement. To counter that, it is quite obvious that "remainers" are ignoring the economic harms of staying in the EU.

1. We have the EU signing up to TIPP, an agreement so powerfully in favour of the US that it has our government running around headless chickens to protect its self and the NHS from their clutches.

2. We have the fact that the EU is about to give China special trading status giving them free run of our market places and we only have to look at the effect they have had on the steel industry to see how that is bad idea (it is probably good for the poorer EU nations but not us). China will be attacking the car market next

3. We have the fact that the only trading area that is growing slowing than the EU is Antarctica.

4. We have the fact that some EU countries have 24% unemployment, 50% youth unemployment and the EU does nothing about it.

5. We have 7 poorer nations waiting to join the EU. If they join it will have a massive impact on the EU finances and as one of the richer nations we will be picking up the tab.

6. Half the countries in the EU want their own referendum. 45% of Dutch people said they would vote out if there was a referendum today, that is twice what it was for the UK at a similar stage. What happens to the EU finances if a richer nation pulls out and we dont? More tab picking up I suspect.

Your views on any of the above are irrelevant in this thread (there are other threads where they are being debated) - the point of listing them here is to show that there are real economic threats of staying in the EU and that the economic risks of staying or going is a very two way street. Camp remain would love you to believe that a vote for remain would mean "More of the same" but it clearly isnt.

So far I have not seen brexiters proved any economic benefits of leaving EU. The only point they have is that they want their country back and they don’t want to be ruled by Brussels, both of which are not true. This country has a fair share of legislators in Brussels and Brussels has not any authority on this country. This country has not approved anything, from Brussels, which was not compatible to the needs of this country on economic and cultural levels.

All leaders of industries and economies have stated that this country will lose a lot by leaving EU. Most of big businesses leave or slow down their activity in UK. This kills thousands of small businesses, which depend on these big businesses. The country loses competitive edge against EU in the world especially in China. Already we can not compete with China, so what are we going to do against Chinese low cost products after we leave EU. Bear in mind China will become another Japan in efficiency to produce low cost products against our own higher cost products. Bear in mind if we leave EU gradually labour cost goes very high because labour supply decreases a lot. Almost all the businesses will suffer from the shortage of labour. We can not also compete with EU because of EU low labour cost.

There will be shortage of unskilled workers, which prevent businesses to expand. All businesses need the support of unskilled labour, otherwise they can not expand even may not to survive. this causes the surplus of a large volume of skilled workers without work. These skilled workers without work at the end will leave the country to find work somewhere else. So you get brain-drain. At the end to protect national industry, we have to put high trade tariffs on import and create trade barriers.

All signs indicate if this country leaves EU it will become weak and isolated and may degrade to the level of the third world developing countries.

 

[Carl "Excel-Expert" Nixon]

So far I have not seen brexiters proved any economic benefits of leaving EU. The only point they have is that they want their country back and they don’t want to be ruled by Brussels, both of which are not true. This country has a fair share of legislators in Brussels and Brussels has not any authority on this country. This country has not approved anything, from Brussels, which was not compatible to the needs of this country on economic and cultural levels.

All leaders of industries and economies have stated that this country will lose a lot by leaving EU. Most of big businesses leave or slow down their activity in UK. This kills thousands of small businesses, which depend on these big businesses. The country loses competitive edge against EU in the world especially in China. Already we can not compete with China, so what are we going to do against Chinese low cost products after we leave EU. Bear in mind China will become another Japan in efficiency to produce low cost products against our own higher cost products. Bear in mind if we leave EU gradually labour cost goes very high because labour supply decreases a lot. Almost all the businesses will suffer from the shortage of labour. We can not also compete with EU because of EU low labour cost.

There will be shortage of unskilled workers, which prevent businesses to expand. All businesses need the support of unskilled labour, otherwise they can not expand even may not to survive. this causes the surplus of a large volume of skilled workers without work. These skilled workers without work at the end will leave the country to find work somewhere else. So you get brain-drain. At the end to protect national industry, we have to put high trade tariffs on import and create trade barriers.

All signs indicate if this country leaves EU it will become weak and isolated and may degrade to the level of the third world developing countries.

Okay, where are the economic benefits of remaining? I see no promises there at all - just blind belief that we will have more of the same. In reality the EU is the second slowest growing economy in the world after Antarctica - What do you think the chances are we wont be able to grow faster than the EU if we leave considering we are one of the countries that prop up the EU? It has youth unemployment of up to 50% and cant do anything about it.

If you dont believe Brussels has any power of UK laws, ask the people of the steel industry who cant be rescued by the government because of EU laws, or ask Osborne who cant do something as simple as removing a 5% VAT on tampons because of EU laws or this guy whose company has become uncompetitive because of EU laws

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36148990

You need to debate with more people as there are many valid reasons why people want a brexit. They include the economy, the ability to run our own tax affairs without interference, the ability to help our own industries, democracy, un-elected leaders, immigration, security (only yesterday a military leader jumped from the remain camp to the leave camp because of the dangers of an EU army), risky trade deals (TIPP & China), handing over more sovereignty plus many more reasons. You can ignore all the issues being raised by leave supporters and boil it down to "people just wanting their country back", but you are missing the majority of the debate.

If you listen to the debates you would also find out that there numerous business leaders advocating a leave vote. James Dyson (Dyson), Lord Bamford (JCB chairman), John Mills (founder of JML), Joe Foster (Reebok), John Caudwell (Phones4U), John Timpson (Timpsons), Luke Johnson (cafe chain Patisserie Valerie), Nigel Wilson (CEO of Legal & General), Oliver Hemsley (CEO of Numis Securities), Crispin Odey, (boss of leading hedge fund Odey Asset Management), Peter Goldstein, (founder of Superdrug), Steve Dowdle (vice president Europe Sony), David Sismey (MD of Goldman Sachs), Sir Patrick Sheehy (former chairman of British American Tobacco) or you could just go through the list of 300 business leaders who signed an open letter in May to support Brexit.

You are also missing a lot of peoples issues with immigration as well. At the moment we have a totally open door policy to the other EU 27 countries. The flip side of that is we have to apply quotas and visa systems on the other 168 countries (including commonwealth countries) of the world. The quotas get smaller and the visas get tougher to get hold of as more people come in from the EU. James Dyson has said this week he has had to set up design offices abroad because it was easier than getting the talent he wanted in to the UK. Last year the NHS lost out on 2,700 fully trained nurses from non-EU countries due to quotas.

So while we are totally welcoming of 14% of the world we are becoming more and more isolated from the remaining 86% of the world when it comes to importing skills.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Brussels has not any authority on this country.

Please read the Lisbon Treaty.

 

[The Byre]

Please read the Lisbon Treaty.

I missed the book, so I'm waiting for the film.

 

[Swisaw]

I have nothing to worry. Bremain will get the vote to remain. According to latest opinion polls Bremain has overtaken Brexit opinions, which a few days ago had six points more. Latest disclosure about Brexit champion, Boris Johonson, will also stregthen remain side. It has been disclosed that not long ago Boris Johonson was screaming in support of remain. This quick change of side will create a serious doubt about the arguement of Brexit leaders, which ios good for the Bremain.

 

[Carl "Excel-Expert" Nixon]

I take it you are not going to give us any economic benefits of staying in the UK then?

There is not a lot to be learnt from the polls for a few reasons. If you take a look at the BBC poll of polls there is always a swing to remain between around the 18th and 22nd of each month and then a swing back to leave. (see link below)

One thing the polls at the general elections showed is that their accuracy is around +/- 10%, so unless someone gets a 10% swing in their favour, there is nothing to be learnt from the polls.

Unfortunately those being polled dont directly reflect those that actually go out and vote on the day. For example voters are less likely to turn out to vote to keep things the same, where as people wanting a change are more likely to go vote. So remain is on a slight disadvantage.

The polling data shows youngsters are far more likely to vote remain than those that are over 45, who are more likely to vote leave. Over 45's are also far more likely to go out to vote than young ones.

So with the lack of accuracy in the polls and the effects above, I would say it would be very dangerous to bet either way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36271589

 

[Swisaw]

To/ Carl "Excel-Expert" Nixon,

Whatever arguements Brexiters have, they don't make sense on an economic level. If this country leaves EU, it loses EU and American markets and can not compete China from the rest of world markets. Leaving EU is a gamble. No one can predict correctly what will happen After leaving EU. It is not right to gamble with future of this country.

 

[Carl "Excel-Expert" Nixon]

So there are no benefits to remaining then?

That just leaves "remainers" with a pile of risks to their names (TIPP, letting the Chinese have far greater access to our markets, uncontrolled immigration from the EU preventing us from bringing in skilled workers from the rest of the world, a UK government that is losing control of its tax system, a UK government that cant help its own industries and so on). I think you have just painted yourself in to a corner.

With a Brexit we have the opportunity of getting out of TIPP (an exclusively US/EU deal) and setting up trading arrangement with China that protects us. We get the opportunity to slow the flow of immigrants from the EU and open up to immigrants from non-EU countries, so we can improve our skills base. We will be able to decide when we can take VAT off things (1.5 years and we still cant take VAT off tampons - BTW anything that has a VAT of 5% on it, has it set at that level because the EU wont let us remove it). As all UK business will soon need an EU registration number we could be avoiding future european taxes (guess work that one). We would have the opportunity to invest money in to failing industry sectors and even nationalise them if we need. All economic benefits in my eyes.

There are risks on both sides of the coin and I wouldnt dare say there wasnt. All I would say is remain is all risk with no benefits, where as leave is risk and a lot of potential benefits.

BTW Even the IMF are now playing down the risks of a Brexit - Only their worst, worst case scenarios show a potential risk of s recession and even then we have suffered bigger recessions in the last 20 years

http://news.sky.com/story/1713684/imf-brexit-may-not-mean-a-british-recession

 

[Newchodge]

You are aware, aren't you, that the EU wanted to increase tariffs on Chinese steel, in order to protect the European steel industries. Unfortunately the move was blocked by ? Got it, the UK.

Why do you think we would do anything other than roll over and let the Chinese get whatever they want?

 

[Carl "Excel-Expert" Nixon]

Yep very aware. However, I think even the government has to acknowledge that was a huge error (hence them panicking to find a solution now). The trouble is correcting that mistake is going to take at least a couple of years, as it will take that long to get back on the EU table. By then it will be too late. If we were out, it could be a problem we could literally fix over night like the US did. They slapped a 280% tariff on Chinese steel and when that didnt stop them they upped it to 550%. We dont have the freedom to correct those mistakes.

The difference between the tariff we have now and the tariff we stupidly voted down was less than 20% (that's from memory so if anyone can correct that please do). Taking it from the 9%-16% range to the 30%-45% range. That wouldn't have made the blindest bit of difference anyway if the US's 550% tariff is anything to go by.

 

[Newchodge]

What I don't understand, Carl, is why you think a post Brexit government is miraculously going to be better than the one we have now? Given that it will either be the same one or will have that man of huge ability and intellect, Boris Johnson, in charge.

 

[Carl "Excel-Expert" Nixon]

If we have a Brexit will Boris be in charge? For that Cameron has to step aside and there is no sign of that happening (despite the odds being slashed). He has promised to see through the vote of the people so I suspect he will use that as a reason to hang on. Even if Cameron was to step aside Boris would still need to get Brexit through parliament and to enact the leaving of the EU process (2 years) - by which time his term will be up and we will probably be looking at a Labour government by then.

Deciding on Brexit based on the current government is a very pointless exercise (in my opinion). The effects of a brexit goes way past the current government, which like any government is temporary. The same powers everyone is afraid of the Tories getting are exactly the same powers Labour can use next time they are in office to do things like improving workers rights, reversing austerity measures etc.

I personally believe a Brexit will give our government more options and choices, which will allow them to make better decisions for Britain and act on them. If we feel the UK needs to slap a tariff on Chinese steel at short notice we could. If we feel the need to nationalise an industry to protect it we could. If we want to remove VAT or certain taxes we could. All of those should be very basic things for our government to be able to do, but we cant. We have to hope the will of the EU matches the will of the UK, which it never will.

For example, if an EU country has no steel industry to speak of then it will welcome cheap Chinese steel with open arms as it keeps their production and manufacturing prices down. So they are never going to allow the EU to impose tariffs over a certain level. Meanwhile in the UK we could be crying out for higher tariffs but we are not going to get it. So our industry goes down the pan not because of the lack of action from the British government, but because another EU country wants cheap steel and they have our hands tied. I've picked on steel because it outlines the principles that could apply to any industry.

 

[Newchodge]

Carl

The next general election is due in 2020.

The exit from EU should happen within 2 years, That is 2018.

Can I ask again why you think this government will do any better in international negotiations than he current one is doing, (and what the current has done is complete crap).

 

[Chris Ashdown]

The EEC has changed massively over the last 20 odd years and is constantly moving towards its aim of a federal state controlled by 28 commissioners with near total control who don't even keep records of what was said in meetings, not very democratic

Who knows what will happen in the next 5 years if the vote was for remain

Just because Boris and Grove have been the key players in leaving it does not mean they would be left with any government position apart from a MP if they win

I would expect some MP's with very strong feeling may well resign on prinsible

There is a minimum of two years to leave the EEC so no reason for any major change at least for the first year when the main points to be solved would be started

With other countries also giving negative reports on the EEC there is a very good chance they will also have a vote to leave and if so then there would be a strong case for the original 7 countries to work together in a more democratic Free market with no federal intentions which would make more sense

My biggest complaint is the remain camp leaders have given massive doubt around the world by telling everyone the uk is finished and cannot self govern and our workforce cannot compete on the open market, things that many people have died defending over history

How Osborn can remain in office would seem impossible after spending so much time talking us down regardless of the outcome

If we do remain in my question is what purpose does the government fill and should it be abolished and just run by EMP's

 

[Swisaw]

So far Brexiters have not been able to provide a viable economic argument. On the other hand Bremainers have put a lot of strong economic points in favour of remaining in EU. The only point Brexiters have is about immigration, which practically directed against immigration outside EU, immigration from commonwealth because of cultural incompatibility. So the question of immigration in support of leaving EU is really misguided. What does it make difference about immigration from commonwealth if we are in or out of EU? Nothing.

A few days ago when opinion polls put Brexiters comfortably ahead of Bremainers, stock market lost about £20.00 billion of its market value and house prices shaken. If Brexiters get it on referendum day, the following day stock market may crash like 1987. Heaven forbids it, if this happens we are going to have a serious recession, which will last at least five years. Property prices crash, millions of people become unemployed and every one has to pay a heavy cost.

Recovery from the recession will be very difficult as we can not compete abroad against far east and become difficult to enter EU and American markets. In order to create a sort of recovery we may have to create a closed economy and give up dependence on export.

Also there is security risks. Scots will leave us, which may also encourage Wales on the same route. We may also lose peace in N. Ireland. If Scotland leaves us because of historical sensitivities and North Sea resource, serious disputes may develop between us and Scotland. So what are we going to do about it? Are we going to war to settle these disputes?

The situation is very obvious. Brexiters are gambling with the future security and economy of this country.

 

[KM-Tiger]

If we do remain in my question is what purpose does the government fill and should it be abolished and just run by EMP's

If we do remain then not a lot of purpose in the Westminster parish council. The civil service would be capable of implementing directives and regulations as they come from Brussels.

There would be some local issues to decide, but 100 MPs to cover the country would surely be enough?

 

[Carl "Excel-Expert" Nixon]

Carl

The next general election is due in 2020.

The exit from EU should happen within 2 years, That is 2018.

Can I ask again why you think this government will do any better in international negotiations than he current one is doing, (and what the current has done is complete crap).

I was year out

Thankfully it is not the government that does the majority of the negotiating - it is civil servants and diplomats that does the bulk of the work. People with real experience and know how. The government only gives general direction and signs off at the end.

You need to look way past the current government - they will only be here for the initial negotiations. They are only temporary and will be replaced in a few years. We will then have another government, and another and another - all of who will have a greater flexibility to do things.

You cant make a life long decision based on who happens to be in power for the next few of years. What if your dream government comes in to power in 2020 and cant do anything because they are bound by EU laws and are basically left powerless.