Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35845132)

Why would we need to agree to that? We are a big market for them. We should be in the driving seat with negotiations.

Originally Posted by RBMark (Post 35845088)

Surely Labour are not so clueless as try to over rule a referendum are they? Could you imagine another Brexit campaign?

It would be vile, poisonous, hate filled, we do not want or need that! Not forgetting labour voters in the majority voted LEAVE!

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35845102)

[QUOTE=ntluser;35845074]I don't really understand why David Cameron chose to step down because the EU Referendum result not only gave him the greatest weapon for reforming the EU but also provided a beacon of hope for all other dissatisfied voters in the other countries within the EU.

The Leave voters don't want to remain in the EU as presently organised but that is not to say that changes cannot be made, though they would have to lead to a much better deal than the one offered which was pathetic.

All EU countries could decide to give up completely any idea of forming a European Superstate and formally put that into EU rules.

They could legislate to make the national courts the supreme courts in any EU country.

They could still have freedom of movement within the EU but within limits specified by national governments, such limits to include the expulsion of criminals and other undesirable elements and limits on numbers.

We could go back to being a trading nation and the EU could dismantle some of the more expensive parts of its infrastructure.

Cameron would not have to activate Article 50 immediately. He could propose changes to make the EU more acceptable and less meddlesome.

He could point out that there is anti-EU sentiment throughout the EU and that if nothing is done the UK Brexit might be an example other countries want to follow. Better to have a really reformed EU than one that decomposes altogether.

And while he is doing all this he can dangle Article 50 over them like the Sword Of Damocles, something he could be doing for years.

In this way we could still remain in the EU complete with our sovereignty, continued access to the EU market with a lot less EU interference and expense. We could also keep the UK united with no need for independence votes.

All we have to do is delay our use of Article 50 so long as the EU reforms and is working for us and all other countries in the EU.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35845129)

One of the biggest, if not the biggest issue of the debate was control of our borders - free movement of people within the eurozone.

Unless the EU capitulate entirely, if we want access to the single market or some kind of associate status, I'm pretty sure that we would be required to agree to free movement of people.

So we won't be taking control of our borders that way.

Originally Posted by ntluser (Post 35845137)

We could still have free movement of people but within limits specified by the UK government.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35845135)

Looks like sturgeon is gearing up for another referendum

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35845138)

If there are limits it's no longer free.

Originally Posted by RBMark (Post 35845141)

If we want open borders we can have them, it will be up to us though, not the EU.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 35845134)

Originally Posted by ntluser (Post 35845147)

I don't see the EU being willing to make the kind of concessions we need. Nor do I see Labour as having the resolve to hold out for the deal we want. It will be another case of stay in the EU at any cost.

Leaders will only start to change their minds when voters in their countries start voting to leave the EU.

Might be worth holding off until after the French and German elections, when EU leaders may be more willing and able to go back to being a trading EU of sovereign nations not a politically dominated one.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35845143)

Yes it will. It will be a condition of the deal with the EU but it will be up to us whether or not we take said deal.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35845138)

If there are limits it's no longer free.

Originally Posted by ntluser (Post 35845150)

Freedom of movement would be relative not absolute.

We say the chaos at borders when the Syrian refugees tried to force their way across borders to a place of safety.

Why were they stopped or delayed if there was complete freedom of movement?

No country has adequate resources to cope with a mass influx of immigrants and thus there had to be some controls.