Thought I'd start a new thread as this is going to be a major talking point this year...have not made up my mind yet...(unlike bucksfizz)....but thinking of voting for an exit as Europe is not doing Britain any good at all it seems....

Read back through some of the rubbish you have posted.

This is supposed to make sense.


http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jun/07/france-wrong-imprison-ghanian-woman-enter-britain-illegaly-eu-court-rules

Instead of France just locking the woman up she should have been returned
to her country of origin, but its easier for France and the EU who
have a no return policy, in general just to lock/contain them just like in the
French manner of excepting the camps on the French coasts,
when the French authorities should be processing them and if they have
no right to be there, returned to their own countries...

The remain campaign MPs outnumber the leave group by 3 to 1. Firstly, as a group they may vote against a leave result in the referendum. Secondly, if we do leave then only parliament has the power to accept any trade agreements that may be negotiated.

There could be several trade agreements on offer, such as Norway's, Canada's, Switzerland's, Iceland's or WTO rules. Parliament will choose the one that the majority of MPs want. That means the MPs who are 3 to 1 in favour of the EU. It is very likely that they will choose a Norway type deal which will allow free movement of people just as we have now. It won't matter how tough the negotiators are or what deal they recommend. The pro EU MPs will decide.

In these justices dept, ie: Home office etc and the French equivalent ,
they're supposed to be intelligent people and should be able to see
where the problems could arise, but also done the right thing at the
begining.

Many Remain MPs 'expect' that the likely economic shock following a Brexit vote would increase pressure on any post-referendum Conservative government to seek access to the single market outside the EU.
Labour MP Stephen Kinnock told the BBC "If the British people voted to leave the EU that's one thing. "But can we really say that they voted for the devastation and destruction of the entire exporting sector of our economy? I don't think you can necessarily say that there's a democratic mandate for that."
Kinnock . That family again. Mam and dad go into the Lords hand in hand each day, pass Go and collect 600 quid to supplement their various pensions, then meet up with the kids who are also living off the exchequer, for a free lunch. Nice. Champagne socialists.

Reality is that the Tories still have a overall majority and must respect the referendum in deed and spirit. If MPs start to play silly buggers the out MPs can bring the government to its knees in quick time and force another general election.

It is not a question of what the Tories want. Three quarters of ALL MPs are remain supporters. That is about 490 MPs. It is those that will choose the trade deal. There is a good chance that it will be a deal that allows free movement of people. It won't do any good bringing down the government as any new government would still be 3 to 1 for remain, support the EU and want fee movement.

You do talk rubbish at times Hays. The government has to show a unified face and allow tough and sincere trade negotiations to take place after Brexit. If it is seen to be poor losers, undermining negotiations and siding with tossers like Kinnock, all hell will break loose.

I don't think so. There will be a team of negotiators and the talks will last quite a time, probably several years. They will come up with a set of choices of possible trade deals and they can only be cut down to one and ratified by our parliament. At that point the MPs will choose the one they like. That is the MPs who are three quarters in favour of the EU and don't mind freedom of movement. Which trade agreement will they pick?

Cameron has said that the referendum is more important than losing an election. I think that the MPs will choose a trade deal that has freedom of movement as that will give us the closest to the deal we currently have. It doesn't matter who is the Prime Minister. Even if it is Boris or a pro Brexit PM, there will still be 3 to 1 majority of pro EU MPs.

OK, you don't think so. We still have a parliamentary system where MPs vote according to party policy. Those that go against the whip suffer the consequences. Should the Government actively undermine the spirit of the referendum, it will also suffer the consequences. The EU is hardly worth losing power for.

The Labour, Libs, SNP, Green and other whips will be in favour of a deal with freedom of movement. That only leaves the Conservatives. A large number of Conservatives are in favour of the EU. Their majority is so small that a dozen voting for a freedom of movement type deal will do it. There are plenty of Conservative MPs that are not frightened by the whip.

So, your position is, the will of the people (referendum) will be ignored whatever the vote.

Is that Dave's ace in the hole? If so, it's a gift to UKIP, and all the parties can kiss goodbye to any support them may have.

It won't be the will of the people ignored. We would out of the EU. The trade deal options would be up to parliament to choose. You surely can't imagine that the negotiating team will decide. They have no authority apart to see what deals they can make. I am sure they will have a selection of deals similar to the existing deals now or even better. They may recommend one specific deal, but Parliament will decide. You are right in that some of the public won't like it. However, the iN and OUT are pretty evenly split and some of the Brexiters don't mind freedom of movement. For instance I want out and it has nothing to do with immigration. That is also the view of the Brexit Labour MPs.

Post Brexit is going to be a very confusing time. There will be plenty of people waning a similar deal to what we have now even a the cost of freedom of movement. Leaving the EU is not necessarily going to be the answer to immigration. It doesn't matter what UKIP say as the referendum has been done.

Even if the trade deal allows more control over immigration, it is not set in stone. A future Labour government is free to give away the immigration controls in exchange for a better trade deal and they probably would bearing in mind that they like freedom of movement.

Immigration is but one part of the story.

I want out of the trading agreement that sees the €U negotiate world wide trading agreements on our behalf...it's a disaster.

Also, what about fishing grounds, it would be good to have control over this as well.

btw, there will be no future labour gov (as it stands) nor tory either the way it is going.

It will be one of them. UKIP certainly could not get much more than half a dozen MPs even with 30% of the votes due to our voting system.

So much for Parliament deciding on trade deals...

A set of notes that were allegedly made during the EU Foreign Affairs/Trade-Council on 13 May in Brussels, appears to show the UK aggressively pushing for a controversial trade between the EU and Canada to be implemented before the UK parliament would have a chance to vote on the issue.

The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is a free trade deal between Canada and the EU that shares most of the same characteristics as TTIP – the equivalent deal between the EU and the USA. Campaigners argue that the deal, which has already been agreed on but yet to be ratified, would amount to an enormous corporate power grab, undermine laws to protect labour rights, consumer standards and the environment, as well as leave countries in the EU vulnerable to law suits from companies that are registered in Canada.

Current negotiations are building up to a ministerial meeting in late June that will determine the implementation process of CETA. The ‘minutes’ show that while most countries in the EU are proposing for CETA to require national parliamentary approval before it passes into law, the UK along with 6 other Member States, “called for the earliest possible entry into force or application of the Agreement (Finland, Spain, Estonia, Sweden, the UK, Portugal, Lithuania and Cyprys).”

Nick Dearden, the director of Global Justice Now which has been campaigning against CETA and other similar free-trade deals said:

“Toxic trade deals like CETA are inherently undemocratic. But Cameron seems perfectly happy to go beyond what the EU requires – he seems to be interested in handing over sovereignty for the sake of it. Again, Britain plays the role of making the EU less, rather than more, democratic.

TTIP has not been agreed at all. The negotiations have been suspended. Hilary Clinton is opposed to it as are many EU countries. It has to be ratified by the EU countries and there is the power of veto. They are no where finishing the details. It is virtually impossible for it to happen.

Read before rushing to print. The notes are about CETA, not TTIP.