If we vote for Brexit what happens

kabayiri

cahillg81 wrote: »

...
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.
...

Reform suggests a degree of control.

Good luck with that. Schengen will be dead in the water within months IMO.

Nation states will take control of their own borders; just as they have been doing with the refugee crisis.

Turkey will come knocking on the door with more demands. The Turkish leadership are not stupid. They know the weak position of the EU.

Change will come, but it will be heavily driven by external events.

I remain negative on the outlook of the current EU. It's disappointing, because it has massive potential.

ruggedtoast

The EU can do what it likes with Schengen, but Europeans will continue to be impacted by their leaders supine support of America's disastrous 'eternal conflict' Middle East policy. Not to mention their calamitous intervention in Europe's near abroad, which is now being lost about 400 nil to Russia.

Meanwhile Cameron crows about "brilliant" arms sales to Saudi Arabia, a country fundamentally involved in promoting the poisonous Wahabbist indoctrination that pretty much every terrorist who wants to kill us all buys into.

BREXIT? What a joke. Its barely even relevant. There is no way out of this mess without fundamental reform of our political elite.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The EU can do what it likes with Schengen, but Europeans will continue to be impacted by their leaders supine support of America's disastrous 'eternal conflict' Middle East policy. Not to mention their calamitous intervention in Europe's near abroad, which is now being lost about 400 nil to Russia.

Meanwhile Cameron crows about "brilliant" arms sales to Saudi Arabia, a country fundamentally involved in promoting the poisonous Wahabbist indoctrination that pretty much every terrorist who wants to kill us all buys into.

BREXIT? What a joke. Its barely even relevant. There is no way out of this mess without fundamental reform of our political elite.

That's nice. How do I vote for that?

Conrad

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Meanwhile Cameron crows about "brilliant" arms sales to Saudi Arabia, a country fundamentally involved in promoting the poisonous Wahabbist indoctrination

An all party commission into precisely this found next to no evidence. I used to buy into the state Wahabbist meme to, but I think it's a bit of an urban myth, much propagated by Ken Livingston who's like a dog with a bone once he gets an idea rolling


My understanding is public preaching by such people is now banned, and such people are being disappeared by the regime.


It's always puzzled me why a money centric regime and ally of the west would wish to promote Wahhabism with the result it would cost them business and powerful friends. The last thing the Saudi Royal family wants is to lose America given all the arab spring uprisings largely motivated by Islam.


I think it's the case that any such funding and promotion was by individuals rather than the state.

ruggedtoast

Conrad wrote: »

An all party commission into precisely this found next to no evidence. I used to buy into the state Wahabbist meme to, but I think it's a bit of an urban myth, much propagated by Ken Livingston who's like a dog with a bone once he gets an idea rolling


My understanding is public preaching by such people is now banned, and such people are being disappeared by the regime.


It's always puzzled me why a money centric regime and ally of the west would wish to promote Wahhabism with the result it would cost them business and powerful friends. The last thing the Saudi Royal family wants is to lose America given all the arab spring uprisings largely motivated by Islam.


I think it's the case that any such funding and promotion was by individuals rather than the state.

You're assuming that the Western military industrial simplex actually wants an end to terrorism.

Wouldn't be great for their bottom line, would it?

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

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.

I have no 'ists or isms' but I do agree that that if history had been different then the outcome would be different.
I believe in looking for practical solution to problems. I'm not sure that a white christian power block is the best way forward, although I do understand why it is within your comfort zone

I certainly believe in abolishing the EU tariff (and non tariff) barriers, as I believe that have done huge damage to poor developing (largely non white) peoples as well as to the people of the EU.

I don't share your ambition for one world superpower until at least we have a few decades of world peace and abolish of religion: by then we won't need a superpower but each group could self govern : we could call those groups nations or countries if you like.

and on the matter of innovation and technical progress, its much more likely that many competing ideas might lead a single person to find an clean energy solution as huge corporation that you seem to love.
I note that Higgs said he couldn't have been a researcher today because of the corporatism.

CLAPTON

danothy wrote: »

Admitting it is the first step



No, you are not.



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.

better to discuss that after we have established world peace, abolished religion, raised the living standards of the entire world, resolved the issue of climate change
but even then I find your view on population absolutely repulsive

gfplux

CLAPTON wrote: »

increditable how every 'interesting' bit of news you find is pro stay?
is there nothing 'interesting ' that is brexit?

anyway please explain why you are in favour of lower animal welfare standards?
do you find it funny to treat animal badly?

the bendy bananas rules did a lot of damage to developing countries (mainly non white so less important), wasted masses of food in a world with hunger and increase global warming. : hugely funny.

Really Clapton, that is bazaar even for you.
I was pointing out and commenting on a 5 minute radio piece. I DID NOT say I was in favour of lower levels of animal welfare. I just thought (wrongly for you) that I would draw posters attention to this particular nugget of information.
Hard facts in this debate are hard to come by and are then obscured by some.
You are right I should have REVERSED what the programme (the Pig Farmer) actually said and reported.....

" The EU have constantly lobbied the UK Government to reduce the Animal Welfare regulations that protect out livestock. The British Government has continued to resist these pressures"

By putting an anti EU spin on the facts they would have suited you.
NOW Clapton you have a nice quote to pass on.

gfplux

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.

Note to self. "If you come accross someone who likes to bicker.....ignore them"

gfplux

Generali wrote: »

It's how negotiations are done in bad faith.

If someone was negotiating with me like that at work I'd have to consider whether I wanted to carry on doing business with them or not.

If you want to stay vote remain, if you want to leave vote to leave. The rest is just a silly ploy to try to mop up a few more votes from the credulous.

Well said.