If we vote for Brexit what happens

antrobus

kbrumann wrote: »

Wanting to remain in the EU after a second referendum is an in-congruent argument for a Brexit campaigner, but it is, IMHO also impossible: iitm.be/changevsbrexit . On top, it exposes Brexiters like Boris Johnson et al as ruthless, disingenuous and dangerous.

I don't believe that the author quite understands.

There is an argument that, having had one referendum on the question of EU membership that, in the event of a 'leave' vote, there should be another referendum to approve the agreement with the EU that would result. As in Article 50 - "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union"

It is therefore perfectly possible that the UK electorate might vote to leave, and then having had a look at the terms of leaving, decide that they didn't like them, and vote to stay after all. As Article 50 (3) makes clear, the treaties cease to apply "from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement", thus if the coming into force of the withdrawal agreement was contingent on approval by a referendum, it would not come into force, the treaties would remain in place, and the UK would remain in the EU.

From a pragmatical point of view, it all depends on to what extent the EU and the other member states are keen on keeping the UK 'inside the fold'. The EU has a history of getting the wrong answer in various referendums, and then repackaging things in order to get the right answer. So I would not exclude the possibilty this time around.

michaels

This is after all exactly how pay negotiations are carried out. Step 1 is for the Unions to get a strike approved via ballot with a big mandate and schedule in some strike dates, then negotiations can commence in earnest.

I can see DC (or BoJo) having a much stronger hand in negotiating if they need to win a referendum to stay than currently where we need to overcome the fear factor to vote to leave.

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

In what sense are the existing standards "poorly thought out" and what exactly are these "bad side effects"?



It is not a question of food regulation, it is a question of marketing standards. So that when a consumer walks into Tescos to buy some apples designated as class I, they know that what Tesco means by class 1, is exactly what Asda, Aldi, et all mean by class 1 apples.

I would say that less than 1 in 100 customers entering a supermarket know what class 1 or class 2 mean.
I would guess that even less know how much it costs to build maintain these standards either;
and similarly doubt that many care either.

mayonnaise

CLAPTON wrote: »

I would say that less than 1 in 100 customers entering a supermarket know what class 1 or class 2 mean.
I would guess that even less know how much it costs to build maintain these standards either;
and similarly doubt that many care either.

The ECJ ruling on bananas didn't outlaw bendy bananas. It just said these bananas couldn't be sold as Class I.
Similarly, I don't want to find minuscule shrimp in a bag with 'large king prawns' printed on it.
And rump steak shouldn't be labelled as fillet steak.

I don't even know why we're discussing this. You just need to bicker, don't you?

gfplux

michaels wrote: »

This is after all exactly how pay negotiations are carried out. Step 1 is for the Unions to get a strike approved via ballot with a big mandate and schedule in some strike dates, then negotiations can commence in earnest.

I can see DC (or BoJo) having a much stronger hand in negotiating if they need to win a referendum to stay than currently where we need to overcome the fear factor to vote to leave.

I can assure you there will be ABSOLUTELY no appetite for a second round of negotiations with a 2nd ballot in mind in almost all of the rest of the EU.
Most normal citizens are slightly Pixxed off with the UK already. I am English and frankly I am getting to the opinion "if you don't want to play the game, get out of the dressing room"

You and others are seriously mistaken if you think there is a second bite of the cherry possible.

CLAPTON

gfplux wrote: »

I can assure you there will be ABSOLUTELY no appetite for a second round of negotiations with a 2nd ballot in mind in almost all of the rest of the EU.
Most normal citizens are slightly Pixxed off with the UK already. I am English and frankly I am getting to the opinion "if you don't want to play the game, get out of the dressing room"

You and others are seriously mistaken if you think there is a second bite of the cherry possible.

You have a 100% history of supporting 'stay' and this post is no different.
Even if you are correct (unlikely), as the people of the EU have exactly ZERO say in the negotiations, their view counts for exactly ZERO.

CLAPTON

mayonnaise wrote: »

The ECJ ruling on bananas didn't outlaw bendy bananas. It just said these bananas couldn't be sold as Class I.
Similarly, I don't want to find minuscule shrimp in a bag with 'large king prawns' printed on it.
And rump steak shouldn't be labelled as fillet steak.

I don't even know why we're discussing this. You just need to bicker, don't you?

I didn't know that the ECJ had ruled on the cosmetics of food : makes the EU seem even more stupid.

Selling rump as fillet is fraud and not a cosmetic issue.

Thrugelmir

Pressure building sooner than expected.

Migrant crisis: Greece recalls ambassador from Austria amid EU rifts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35658776

Haven't even reached the good weather period for travelling yet.

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

I don't believe that the author quite understands.

There is an argument that, having had one referendum on the question of EU membership that, in the event of a 'leave' vote, there should be another referendum to approve the agreement with the EU that would result. As in Article 50 - "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union"

It is therefore perfectly possible that the UK electorate might vote to leave, and then having had a look at the terms of leaving, decide that they didn't like them, and vote to stay after all. As Article 50 (3) makes clear, the treaties cease to apply "from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement", thus if the coming into force of the withdrawal agreement was contingent on approval by a referendum, it would not come into force, the treaties would remain in place, and the UK would remain in the EU.

From a pragmatical point of view, it all depends on to what extent the EU and the other member states are keen on keeping the UK 'inside the fold'. The EU has a history of getting the wrong answer in various referendums, and then repackaging things in order to get the right answer. So I would not exclude the possibilty this time around.

Has anyone asked David Cameron whether, in the event of an exit vote we would have a second referendum?

If this is his plan ( I think that he has denied there would be a second referendum - but possibly in relation of BoJos call to vote no to get a second vote) the context of that vote might be rather odd. The vote might be ostensibly about accepting or rejecting the terms but would be influenced by the impact of two years of uncertainty, perhaps worse economic circumstances for example and threats to relocate major firms to the EU.

Equally what would be do if the vote was for exit but the terms of exit were rejected?

Nick_C

mayonnaise wrote: »

The ECJ ruling on bananas didn't outlaw bendy bananas. It just said these bananas couldn't be sold as Class I.
Similarly, I don't want to find minuscule shrimp in a bag with 'large king prawns' printed on it.
And rump steak shouldn't be labelled as fillet steak.

I don't even know why we're discussing this. You just need to bicker, don't you?

I think we're discussing it because a couple of posts referred to EU rules on bananas and you tried to claim that is a myth that these rules prevent some bananas from being sold.

Has this really been ruled on by the ECJ? Do you have a link to this story, cause I couldn't find it.

For the record, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 of 16 September 1994 says that bananas must be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature".

So producers will be throwing away bananas with "abnormal curvature" (which is not actually defined). Far too much perfectly good food is thrown away simply because it's not the "correct" shape or size. Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall has been trying to highlight this issue.