If we vote for Brexit what happens

kabayiri

Masomnia wrote: »

Did you even read what you googled? It's a list of promises, not lies!

Didn't the EU promise that the Euro would lead to a successful powerhouse Europe?

Didn't Merkel claim that Germany could comfortably take on a million refugees without any real disruption?

It seems to me like we are not unique in making loose promises.

mrginge

chucknorris wrote: »

If we accept that the vote is over, and that we should leave the EU because that was the result of the vote, which does seem to be the situation that we are in.

I would prefer a soft Brexit to stay in the common market, I would probably go along with the Norwegian model, which would allow us to stay in the common market, but also would require us to maintain freedom of movement, and also pay fees to the EU (but with less influence). But we would be free(r) of the EU influencing our laws/regulations. I think that this would probably be worse than the deal that we currently have now (but don't blame me, I voted remain), but probably still better than taking the hard Brexit route.

This isn't ideal, but going back and ignoring the result of the vote doesn't appear to be route that is being considered, the stance seems to be that we had a vote to leave the EU, and that is what we should do, I can live with that.

Norway is not free of the EU influencing laws/regulations.
Norway is in schengen so has less control of its borders.

So you would give up even the current level of immigration controls in order to retain the same kind of market access?

chucknorris

mrginge wrote: »

Norway is not free of the EU influencing laws/regulations.
Norway is in schengen so has less control of its borders.

So you would give up even the current level of immigration controls in order to retain the same kind of market access?

My bad, but EU laws/influence are not an issue to me (I don't mind having less powerful vacuum cleaners). Immigration isn't a negative issue to me either, and it never has been.

wotsthat

Lying is going to be an Olympic sport in Tokyo 2020. To ensure Britain wins a gold medal in lying we need to decide who to put in charge of the performance program.

Two choices; Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Nigel Farage or David Cameron and George Osborne?

I'd definitely want the three degrees in charge of all lying activities.

padington

Masomnia wrote: »

We were told that the emergency budget would happen, then a shortly after the vote we were told it wouldn't be happening after all. There are a lot of promises on both sides that remain to be seen, as well as a lot of 'lies' on both sides - you can debate what's a lie and what isn't.

I think the problem 'leave' had is that they were not in power and in no position to make promises or plans, so it will not end well for them.

The biggest deception for me is remain's campaign being based on the economy. It's about sovereignty, over law and for most(?) leave voters, our borders. The remain side made no attempt to make a positive case for Europe because they know that they will never win a debate over sovereignty in the EU, because people just do not want to be part of a political project; hence they gambled on being able to scare enough people into voting remain.

Had the referendum question asked something along the lines of 'Should UK law or EU be supreme in the UK?' it would be a landslide for for UK, of course.

I'm talking about what will happen, not what did happen. I'll say it again, if we leave the European union the economic consequences will be dreadful.

wotsthat

I favour a soft Brexit. The only red line I would put in place is that the UK shouldn't give up newly repatriated powers to negotiate trade deals with other countries/ trading blocks. Free movement, fees and adoption of EU legislation are all worth it IMO - that's what we've got now and the sun still rises every morning.

This would maintain the stability of trade with the EU and give the UK space to see whether there really is a queue of third countries that are able to add to/ replace current EU trade.

If it turns out the Brexiteers are completely wrong about just how much trade the EU prevents us from doing at least we won't have gambled away what trade we do have.

If it turns out the Brexiteers are correct and there's going to be increased trade (and quickly) we simply re-negotiate with the EU from this new, stronger position.

Thrugelmir

padington wrote: »

I'll say it again, if we leave the European union the economic consequences will be dreadful.

There's no case at the moment to suggest that the EU is working economically. Much of Europe is struggling terribly and has been for years. Hence the rising opposition to much of what is driven along by Germany and France in particular. Imposing their will on others.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Surely all this tough-talking Hard Brexit rhetoric is the classic politicians' ruse of announcing an extreme strategy (tax people with ginger hair an extra 10%). Then after some guff and bluster they can modify it to only taxing gingers 5%, making them look reasonable and open to debate.

Thrugelmir

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Surely all this tough-talking Hard Brexit rhetoric is the classic politicians' ruse of announcing an extreme strategy (tax people with ginger hair an extra 10%). Then after some guff and bluster they can modify it to only taxing gingers 5%, making them look reasonable and open to debate.

Seems pretty obvious what the starting positions will be. After all Cameron received short shrift during his negotiations for any change at all. Mrs May will of course have been privy to what was said at the time. So isn't going to tread over the same old ground. Problem for the EU is that may well have to concede something. Being dictatorial over the UK affairs may not go down well on home soil either. As questions may be asked in whose interests are they making policy for the whole of the EU.

Masomnia

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Surely all this tough-talking Hard Brexit rhetoric is the classic politicians' ruse of announcing an extreme strategy (tax people with ginger hair an extra 10%). Then after some guff and bluster they can modify it to only taxing gingers 5%, making them look reasonable and open to debate.

I think it's exactly that. I doubt May wants 'hard Brexit' and I doubt the majority of UK citizens do. I'm sure it's more of an attempt to show the EU that we are not desperate for a deal and will walk away if there no concessions.