Now that Britain has voted to leave the EU, what comes next?

[JB300]

Actually Davis does put a good spin on things so if it works out anywhere near as rosy as he's saying, it will be good for the country.

Sticking point with the EU will be immigration, I don't see why they can't follow similar models used elsewhere & allow freedom of movement if you have a confirmed job offer & valid only whilst you remain employed.

[Gweiloman]

Actually Davis does put a good spin on things so if it works out anywhere near as rosy as he's saying, it will be good for the country.

Sticking point with the EU will be immigration, I don't see why they can't follow similar models used elsewhere & allow freedom of movement if you have a confirmed job offer & valid only whilst you remain employed.

The EU is meant to be a single nation. That's akin to living in Korat and wanting to move to Bangkok. Don't need a confirmed job offer for that.

[bkkcanuck8]

Actually Davis does put a good spin on things so if it works out anywhere near as rosy as he's saying, it will be good for the country.

Sticking point with the EU will be immigration, I don't see why they can't follow similar models used elsewhere & allow freedom of movement if you have a confirmed job offer & valid only whilst you remain employed.

He does put a good spin on things, but since a lot of what he is spinning is not in his control.... he could just be fantasizing himself as a spinning top

[dick dasterdly]

Actually Davis does put a good spin on things so if it works out anywhere near as rosy as he's saying, it will be good for the country.

Sticking point with the EU will be immigration, I don't see why they can't follow similar models used elsewhere & allow freedom of movement if you have a confirmed job offer & valid only whilst you remain employed.

He does put a good spin on things, but since a lot of what he is spinning is not in his control.... he could just be fantasizing himself as a spinning top

But at least he's laid out exactly what he intends to do following the brexit vote.

His plans sound about right to me - fingers crossed.

[Naam]

@Naam

Is that it? Guess you couldn't shoot it down then. Shame.

you can't shoot down overly optimistic claims based on nothing but assumptions except if they contain facts or are totally unrealistic. some of them i denoted.

but even when only a part of a politician's claim belongs to the category fairy tales, e.g. "higher productivity employment because of Brexit"... one should look at the rest with healthy skepticism.

[billd766]

Now that Boris is back in government people can ask what he will be doing towards forming a Brexit policy acceptable to the new PM.

[dick dasterdly]

Now that Boris is back in government people can ask what he will be doing towards forming a Brexit policy acceptable to the new PM.

Nope, that's Davis' job.

[JB300]

Actually Davis does put a good spin on things so if it works out anywhere near as rosy as he's saying, it will be good for the country.

Sticking point with the EU will be immigration, I don't see why they can't follow similar models used elsewhere & allow freedom of movement if you have a confirmed job offer & valid only whilst you remain employed.

He does put a good spin on things, but since a lot of what he is spinning is not in his control.... he could just be fantasizing himself as a spinning top

But at least he's laid out exactly what he intends to do following the brexit vote.

His plans sound about right to me - fingers crossed.

Absolutely... Rest of the guys be like...

[mommysboy]

May's statement following her recent trip to Scotland might suggest that Scotland's Government must agree to Brexit before Article 50 is invoked. Quite right too imo. We are the UK, we stand in support of each other. If Scotland says no, that is fine by me- it can't go ahead.

Edited July 16, 2016 by mommysboy

[Thaiwine]

May's statement following her recent trip to Scotland might suggest that Scotland's Government must agree to Brexit before Article 50 is invoked. Quite right too imo. We are the UK, we stand in support of each other. If Scotland says no, that is fine by me- it can't go ahead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

From an electorate of 46.5 million people

17.5 million voted to leave, of which over 1 million scots voted to leave

16.1 million voted to Remain, of which 1.6 million scots voted remain,

so we should cancel the result, hmmm

[mommysboy]

May's statement following her recent trip to Scotland might suggest that Scotland's Government must agree to Brexit before Article 50 is invoked. Quite right too imo. We are the UK, we stand in support of each other. If Scotland says no, that is fine by me- it can't go ahead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

From an electorate of 46.5 million people

17.5 million voted to leave, of which over 1 million scots voted to leave

16.1 million voted to Remain, of which 1.6 million scots voted remain,

so we should cancel the result, hmmm

No the result stands. We go ahead with the consent of Scotland and N.Ireland. It's not just about the result, it's the enactment of it. Like it or not, this is the real world not binary world! It's very difficult to make nations do something they don't want to. Good intentions fall by the wayside for many reasons. Nobody's refusing to do it, just saying it may not be possible without profound implications.

Of course if the Brexiteers should come up with the trade deal promised, I don't suppose there will be any opposition all round. Slim hope though. Parliament will never agree to a bad deal for UK anyway. Would you want that?

[Caps]

May's statement following her recent trip to Scotland might suggest that Scotland's Government must agree to Brexit before Article 50 is invoked. Quite right too imo. We are the UK, we stand in support of each other. If Scotland says no, that is fine by me- it can't go ahead.

Funny that...i was reading that..... May is willing to listen to options for Scotland future in Europe and after talks in Edinburgh, May appeared unwilling to consider a second referendum on Scottish independence. She also said that she won't be triggering Article 50 until she thinks that we have a UK approach and objectives for negotiations.

That to me does not say Scotland must agree?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36800536

[mommysboy]

May's statement following her recent trip to Scotland might suggest that Scotland's Government must agree to Brexit before Article 50 is invoked. Quite right too imo. We are the UK, we stand in support of each other. If Scotland says no, that is fine by me- it can't go ahead.

Funny that...i was reading that..... May is willing to listen to options for Scotland future in Europe and after talks in Edinburgh, May appeared unwilling to consider a second referendum on Scottish independence. She also said that she won't be triggering Article 50 until she thinks that we have a UK approach and objectives for negotiations.

That to me does not say Scotland must agree?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36800536

It's very nuanced, and I suspect meant to be. It would certainly be difficult to move forward on Article 50 without Scotland's consent as there might be profound constitutional implications. Personally I chose to use the phrase might suggest.

In my opinion it would be a very pyrrhic victory indeed if the cost was a useless trade deal, and the break up of the UK.

[Thaiwine]

May's statement following her recent trip to Scotland might suggest that Scotland's Government must agree to Brexit before Article 50 is invoked. Quite right too imo. We are the UK, we stand in support of each other. If Scotland says no, that is fine by me- it can't go ahead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

From an electorate of 46.5 million people

17.5 million voted to leave, of which over 1 million scots voted to leave

16.1 million voted to Remain, of which 1.6 million scots voted remain,

so we should cancel the result, hmmm

No the result stands. We go ahead with the consent of Scotland and N.Ireland. It's not just about the result, it's the enactment of it. Like it or not, this is the real world not binary world! It's very difficult to make nations do something they don't want to. Good intentions fall by the wayside for many reasons. Nobody's refusing to do it, just saying it may not be possible without profound implications.

Of course if the Brexiteers should come up with the trade deal promised, I don't suppose there will be any opposition all round. Slim hope though. Parliament will never agree to a bad deal for UK anyway. Would you want that?

There is a difference between listening to and doing your best to take on board than being told what to do, of course all people of the union count after all the vote was for the UK not one part of the union,

The results stands but is ignored would not be wise in my opinion, as Nigel Farage said, if the government do not deliver on Brexit watch Ukip at the 2020 elections, I think he has a point.

I would think the way to go is to show that leaving the EU is in the best intrest of the UK and so taking away supporters from any nationalistic group, after all I feel British first and then English, this would be the type of patriotism to build on

[Caps]

May's statement following her recent trip to Scotland might suggest that Scotland's Government must agree to Brexit before Article 50 is invoked. Quite right too imo. We are the UK, we stand in support of each other. If Scotland says no, that is fine by me- it can't go ahead.

Funny that...i was reading that..... May is willing to listen to options for Scotland future in Europe and after talks in Edinburgh, May appeared unwilling to consider a second referendum on Scottish independence. She also said that she won't be triggering Article 50 until she thinks that we have a UK approach and objectives for negotiations.

That to me does not say Scotland must agree?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36800536

It's very nuanced, and I suspect meant to be. It would certainly be difficult to move forward on Article 50 without Scotland's consent as there might be profound constitutional implications. Personally I chose to use the phrase might suggest.

In my opinion it would be a very pyrrhic victory indeed if the cost was a useless trade deal, and the break up of the UK.

As a Brexiter I agree we need a good trade deal but for me it was not about not having trade or immigration etc etc. I have always liked being apart of Europe i.e. the EEC and the EFTA. But the EU is not for me, we got along perfectly well before the EU and its a shame that we can not just go back to how it was before a so called Parliament was formed to start ruling/controlling/dictating. Ruling should be done from each individual countries Government. We have proved in the past it can work for Europe and for it to be a good working system

Edited July 16, 2016 by Caps

[mommysboy]

May's statement following her recent trip to Scotland might suggest that Scotland's Government must agree to Brexit before Article 50 is invoked. Quite right too imo. We are the UK, we stand in support of each other. If Scotland says no, that is fine by me- it can't go ahead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

From an electorate of 46.5 million people

17.5 million voted to leave, of which over 1 million scots voted to leave

16.1 million voted to Remain, of which 1.6 million scots voted remain,

so we should cancel the result, hmmm

No the result stands. We go ahead with the consent of Scotland and N.Ireland. It's not just about the result, it's the enactment of it. Like it or not, this is the real world not binary world! It's very difficult to make nations do something they don't want to. Good intentions fall by the wayside for many reasons. Nobody's refusing to do it, just saying it may not be possible without profound implications.

Of course if the Brexiteers should come up with the trade deal promised, I don't suppose there will be any opposition all round. Slim hope though. Parliament will never agree to a bad deal for UK anyway. Would you want that?

There is a difference between listening to and doing your best to take on board than being told what to do, of course all people of the union count after all the vote was for the UK not one part of the union,

The results stands but is ignored would not be wise in my opinion, as Nigel Farage said, if the government do not deliver on Brexit watch Ukip at the 2020 elections, I think he has a point.

I would think the way to go is to show that leaving the EU is in the best intrest of the UK and so taking away supporters from any nationalistic group, after all I feel British first and then English, this would be the type of patriotism to build on

Certainly a core of the vote, or at least the provocative part was very nationalistic: English nationalism.

It's also true that a part of the Tory vote is against the Brexit.

People won't buy platitudes, MP's certainly won't, and the only way forward is a good plan that sticks with the pledges. I don't see that happening at all.

MP's will just be looking for a vehicle that distracts attention away from onus to act: national interest, economic interest, constitutional interest can all provide that. In effect they will look for a 'would have if I could have'.

But I think its going to come down to what sort of package the Brexiteers can put together. I suspect not a very good one.

Edited July 16, 2016 by mommysboy

[MissAndry]

What we really need to move Brexit along smartly is a terrorist attack in central London carried out by Muslim immigrants.

[bkkcanuck8]

As a Brexiter I agree we need a good trade deal but for me it was not about not having trade or immigration etc etc. I have always liked being apart of Europe i.e. the EEC and the EFTA. But the EU is not for me, we got along perfectly well before the EU and its a shame that we can not just go back to how it was before a so called Parliament was formed to start ruling/controlling/dictating. Ruling should be done from each individual countries Government and we have proved in the past it can work and for Europe to be a good working system

The EFTA option would not really be brexit, it would be more of what you have now but with no say at all... at least that is what I am lead to believe is the "Norway option".

[mommysboy]

As a Brexiter I agree we need a good trade deal but for me it was not about not having trade or immigration etc etc. I have always liked being apart of Europe i.e. the EEC and the EFTA. But the EU is not for me, we got along perfectly well before the EU and its a shame that we can not just go back to how it was before a so called Parliament was formed to start ruling/controlling/dictating. Ruling should be done from each individual countries Government and we have proved in the past it can work and for Europe to be a good working system

The EFTA option would not really be brexit, it would be more of what you have now but with no say at all... at least that is what I am lead to believe is the "Norway option".

That is completely accurate.

A close look at EFTA tells you it is no free trade deal at all.

And that's important for the sake of the Brexit, which was secured on the explicit understanding that UK would have a free trade deal.

Edited July 16, 2016 by mommysboy

[GuestHouse]

What we really need to move Brexit along smartly is a terrorist attack in central London carried out by Muslim immigrants.

I have a palpable sense of your eagerness for this.

[GuestHouse]

As a Brexiter I agree we need a good trade deal but for me it was not about not having trade or immigration etc etc. I have always liked being apart of Europe i.e. the EEC and the EFTA. But the EU is not for me, we got along perfectly well before the EU and its a shame that we can not just go back to how it was before a so called Parliament was formed to start ruling/controlling/dictating. Ruling should be done from each individual countries Government and we have proved in the past it can work and for Europe to be a good working system

The EFTA option would not really be brexit, it would be more of what you have now but with no say at all... at least that is what I am lead to believe is the "Norway option".

That is completely accurate.

A close look at EFTA tells you it is no free trade deal at all.

And that's important for the sake of the Brexit, which was secured on the explicit understanding that UK would have a free trade deal.

It is actually precisely the EU that the Brexit campaign claimed the UK needs to escape.

[Caps]

As a Brexiter I agree we need a good trade deal but for me it was not about not having trade or immigration etc etc. I have always liked being apart of Europe i.e. the EEC and the EFTA. But the EU is not for me, we got along perfectly well before the EU and its a shame that we can not just go back to how it was before a so called Parliament was formed to start ruling/controlling/dictating. Ruling should be done from each individual countries Government and we have proved in the past it can work and for Europe to be a good working system

The EFTA option would not really be brexit, it would be more of what you have now but with no say at all... at least that is what I am lead to believe is the "Norway option".

That is completely accurate.

A close look at EFTA tells you it is no free trade deal at all.

And that's important for the sake of the Brexit, which was secured on the explicit understanding that UK would have a free trade deal.

I was not going in to the ins and outs of it and but it was far better than what we have now, It was an agreement which worked without all the crap which comes with being in the EU, besides the UK left the EFTA in 1973 when it joined the EEC I think? Which also worked If you got rid of all the EU parliament rubbish and each country ran its self as before then things would be far better and we could still have cooperation. As we used to have

Edited July 16, 2016 by Caps

[mommysboy]

That is completely accurate.

A close look at EFTA tells you it is no free trade deal at all.

And that's important for the sake of the Brexit, which was secured on the explicit understanding that UK would have a free trade deal.

I was not going in to the ins and outs of it and but it was far better than what we have now, It was an agreement which worked without all the crap which comes with being in the EU, besides the UK left the EFTA in 1973 when it joined the EEC I think? Which also worked If you got rid of all the EU parliament rubbish and each country ran its self as before then things would be far better and we could still have cooperation. As we used to have

What you've laid out is the vision that UK wanted for the EU, and which in part 'tossacoin' Dave set out to renegotiate. The EU is set on deeper economic and political integration.

[Grouse]

What we really need to move Brexit along smartly is a terrorist attack in central London carried out by Muslim immigrants.

Yes, most Muslims in the UK are from other EU countries

?

[mommysboy]

Here's a few excerpts from my a Line conversation with a friend who is currently back in Blighty looking after his elderly mother:

"And there were agencies that went around old people's homes and the disabled to collect out votes'

'One of them came here and enabled mom to vote out without having to go to the booths'

'But they only helped you vote if you voted out'

[Naam]

What we really need to move Brexit along smartly is a terrorist attack in central London carried out by Muslim immigrants.

I have a palpable sense of your eagerness for this.

Ms Andry's wish is justified. UK's EU membership is the reason that 2.7 million Muslims live in England (not counting the Muslims in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and British overseas jurisdictions).

time is a dominant factor. without Brexit UK's Muslim population will double every 6 years, 4 month and 21 days.

[MW72]

What we really need to move Brexit along smartly is a terrorist attack in central London carried out by Muslim immigrants.

I have a palpable sense of your eagerness for this.

Ms Andry's wish is justified. UK's EU membership is the reason that 2.7 million Muslims live in England (not counting the Muslims in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and British overseas jurisdictions).

time is a dominant factor. without Brexit UK's Muslim population will double every 6 years, 4 month and 21 days.

UK's Muslim population is predominantly Pakistani & Bangladeshi. How exactly does EU membership relate to immigration of people from non EU countries?

I think you will find a good many of these immigrants came due to the UK's clonial past and nothing to do with EU membership.

[Naam]

What we really need to move Brexit along smartly is a terrorist attack in central London carried out by Muslim immigrants.

I have a palpable sense of your eagerness for this.

Ms Andry's wish is justified. UK's EU membership is the reason that 2.7 million Muslims live in England (not counting the Muslims in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and British overseas jurisdictions).

time is a dominant factor. without Brexit UK's Muslim population will double every 6 years, 4 month and 21 days.

UK's Muslim population is predominantly Pakistani & Bangladeshi. How exactly does EU membership relate to immigration of people from non EU countries?

I think you will find a good many of these immigrants came due to the UK's clonial past and nothing to do with EU membership.

it seems you don't excel in detecting irony, sarcasm or the meaning of an emoji

[jpinx]

That is completely accurate.

A close look at EFTA tells you it is no free trade deal at all.

And that's important for the sake of the Brexit, which was secured on the explicit understanding that UK would have a free trade deal.

I was not going in to the ins and outs of it and but it was far better than what we have now, It was an agreement which worked without all the crap which comes with being in the EU, besides the UK left the EFTA in 1973 when it joined the EEC I think? Which also worked If you got rid of all the EU parliament rubbish and each country ran its self as before then things would be far better and we could still have cooperation. As we used to have

What you've laid out is the vision that UK wanted for the EU, and which in part 'tossacoin' Dave set out to renegotiate. The EU is set on deeper economic and political integration.

The EU parliament and commission might be set on greater integration, but there's plenty of resistance to that in places like Denmark, Austria and Netherlands. They also have the little problem of cash -- they can not balance their books, the IMF have waded in with several comments, Greece is still on a drip-feed and Italy is decidedly shaky, and even the Deutsche Bank has been saying they might need help.

[MW72]

What we really need to move Brexit along smartly is a terrorist attack in central London carried out by Muslim immigrants.

I have a palpable sense of your eagerness for this.

Ms Andry's wish is justified. UK's EU membership is the reason that 2.7 million Muslims live in England (not counting the Muslims in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and British overseas jurisdictions).

time is a dominant factor. without Brexit UK's Muslim population will double every 6 years, 4 month and 21 days.

UK's Muslim population is predominantly Pakistani & Bangladeshi. How exactly does EU membership relate to immigration of people from non EU countries?
I think you will find a good many of these immigrants came due to the UK's clonial past and nothing to do with EU membership.

it seems you don't excel in detecting irony, sarcasm or the meaning of an emoji

My bad.

Whilst I appreciate your sracasm, I wouldn't put it beyond some of the Brexiteer posters to state something similar and actualy mean it.