If we vote for Brexit what happens

setmefree2

CLAPTON wrote: »

The important point is that after brexit we can set our own immigration rules: if we stay we can't.
With brexit if we want to change them we can that's the difference.
Boris' view is no more important than anyone elses as he is not in power.

Norway and Iceland have access to the single market through their membership of the European Economic Area (EEA). But they are obliged to observe all the EU’s single-market regulations without having a say in them, to make payments into the EU budget (in Norway’s case, around 90% of Britain’s net payment per head) and to accept free movement of EU migrants. As a Norwegian minister once put it, “if you want to run Europe, you must be in Europe. If you want to be run by Europe, feel free to join Norway.”


Switzerland, which is not in the EEA, has negotiated bilateral agreements that give access for goods but not most services. It has to keep to most single-market rules, contribute to the budget and accept free movement of people. The Swiss have been warned that, if they try to implement a 2014 referendum demand for limits on the latter, their trade agreement with the EU will lapse.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21693568-david-cameron-will-struggle-win-referendum-britains-eu-membership-if-he-loses

CLAPTON

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21693568-david-cameron-will-struggle-win-referendum-britains-eu-membership-if-he-loses

I have no wish to follow the example of Norway or Switzerland but to trade with the whole world.

setmefree2

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21693568-david-cameron-will-struggle-win-referendum-britains-eu-membership-if-he-loses

most of the British trade deficit with the EU is with just two countries, Germany and Spain—yet a trade agreement must be endorsed by the other 25 members too.

CLAPTON

setmefree2 wrote: »

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21693568-david-cameron-will-struggle-win-referendum-britains-eu-membership-if-he-loses

once again showing the dead hand of the EU
do harm to some of their own citizen out of dogma
no wonder there is so much unemployment there.

mayonnaise

danothy wrote: »

The biggest difference I can see is that you seem to want to control population size by controlling the number of non-natives, but if the native born population were to grow of its own accord you wouldn't impose such a control on the native population.

CLAPTON wrote: »

Absolutely

So why do you keep muttering about wanting cheap housing, less traffic jams and a better quality of life in general if you're not prepared to control the native born population to reach that aim?

CLAPTON

mayonnaise wrote: »

So why do you keep muttering about wanting cheap housing, less traffic jams and a better quality of life in general if you're not prepared to control the native born population to reach that aim?

Because I am concerned about achieving sensible, practical, rational outcomes that would be supported by the people of the UK.
I am not motivated by your ideological zeal but by simple practical considerations. I don't wish to reproduce the enormous harm the EU has done to parts of Europe and to developing countries by ideological excesses in the UK.
I would prefer not to start from here but it is too late.
However I don't share your wish for unlimited population growth and the inevitable reduction in the standard of living of the people of the UK.

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

Absolutely

Admitting it is the first step

CLAPTON wrote: »

I am a reasonable person

No, you are not.

CLAPTON wrote: »

what do you wish for?

I wish for whatever policy on population size that is adopted to have objective criteria and be implemented in an objective way. That means if there is to be a cap on population size then it is derived from some measurements pertaining to capacity, not some random racist's imagination, and that the criteria for making the cut regarding who gets to stay when capacity is reached are applied to everyone uniformly regardless of their origin - that is to say: being born somewhere by chance shouldn't exempt you from the criteria because of some imagined concept of birthright (i.e. not treating people differently because of where they were born - aka racism).

That is what I wish for.

Generali

setmefree2 wrote: »

So wouldn't they get in anyway even if we left the EU?

I have no idea. The Leave group seem sketchy on plans for the future.

It seems that many of them profess not to want to leave even. Vote Leave but stay in the EU anyway.

padington

CLAPTON wrote: »

Because I am concerned about achieving sensible, practical, rational outcomes that would be supported by the people of the UK.
I am not motivated by your ideological zeal but by simple practical considerations. I don't wish to reproduce the enormous harm the EU has done to parts of Europe and to developing countries by ideological excesses in the UK.
I would prefer not to start from here but it is too late.
However I don't share your wish for unlimited population growth and the inevitable reduction in the standard of living of the people of the UK.

How about caring about the whole human family and working towards collaborative unions of nation states to ensure there is sufficient resources for our soon stabilising global population. Maybe working towards supporting the largest political union on our planet which we just happen to be a key player of to help develop solutions that no single state on their own can ever achieve ? Possible adopting the idea of free open competition and free movement of goods and services and people to harness capitalist innovation which works best when the best person can be hired to do the right job through a gigantic system of interlinked free People.

Conversely - Imagine if we limited all creatures to only being able to exist in the current nation states boundaries over the history of time. It's possible the human race wouldn't have even become evolved at all.

If the Americans and Canadians and Europeans and Australians United to provide a free movement of its shared people 50 years ago, I am in no doubt the world would be a much more advanced place than it is today. Equally, with zero global protectionist policies the world might have even developed a cheap almost pollutant free energy source by now.

People like you Clapton, along with the socialists and fascists and most of the other 'ists' have held the world back decades, maybe centuries.

cahillg81

There are clearly arguments for and against, but people will vote for the status quo because they don't like change. The same way they did in Scotland.

My instinct is though that the next time Scotland has a referendum they will go, bullying and fear no longer has a place in Scottish politics.

The EU needs massive reform, the only way we can get that is from inside it. There should be a complete overhaul and instead of growing for the sake of growing criteria should be put in place for existing and potential members if you fail to meet that you should be expelled or at least suspended until you prove you are going to change.

I have absolutely no issue with migrants coming here who intend to work - the vast majority - my issue is with free loaders and that includes the native born. I also want reform of the benefit system but it has to be done in a way that is fair, logical and compassionate.