If we vote for Brexit what happens

Masomnia

Moby wrote: »

Our problem was that we opted out of Europe after WW2....we preferred to pursue retaining as much of the Empire as we could. We left the developing politics of Europe to DeGaulle and Adenauer. A huge error..!..we had stood up to Hitler alone and had huge respect. At that point we should have been shaping our future in Europe. Instead we went in on unfavourable terms under Heath years later. :mad:

We did try to join earlier but it was vetoed by De Gaulle!

ruggedtoast

De Gaulle saw the British as an American Trojan horse. Rightly so.

And England has been trying to convince the Americans that they still need a Trojan horse ever since.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

De Gaulle saw the British as an American Trojan horse. Rightly so.

And England has been trying to convince the Americans that they still need a Trojan horse ever since.

France would have been a lot better off if USA and the UK had kept their noses out out of european affairs

Herzlos

Conrad wrote: »

She's given a summary many times, an opening position, I really fail to see she could do any other.

No she hasn't, she's said almost nothing. She's made a few in-private assurances, but not given anyone anything you could call information.

Anyway you're still making the fatal error of framing us as the little poodle and the EU as the master, us as the weak petitioner to be handed down to.

Because we are. Us leaving the single market will hurt the EU a bit, to the tune of maybe 5%. But it'll devestate us, to the tune of about 50%. They'll shrug it off, we won't.

The whole thing is dynamic, we don't even know for example whether the next French leader will be a Europhile.

How does that hurt/hinder us? They aren't going to go out of their way to give us a good deal in either case.

Masomnia

Herzlos wrote: »

No she hasn't, she's said almost nothing. She's made a few in-private assurances, but not given anyone anything you could call information.




Because we are. Us leaving the single market will hurt the EU a bit, to the tune of maybe 5%. But it'll devestate us, to the tune of about 50%. They'll shrug it off, we won't.



How does that hurt/hinder us? They aren't going to go out of their way to give us a good deal in either case.

She's said she wants to gain as much unhindered access to the single market as she can whilst having control over immigration and the UK not being bound by the ECJ. Don't know what more you would want or expect really.

Good trade relations will benefit both sides, so I don't see why you are assuming that we won't have them.

wotsthat

Masomnia wrote: »

She's said she wants to gain as much unhindered access to the single market as she can whilst having control over immigration and the UK not being bound by the ECJ. Don't know what more you would want or expect really.

• Full sovereignty over immigration.
  
• Not being bound by the ECJ.
  
• Unhindered access to the free market.

You don't know what more anyone could want or expect? Really?

Masomnia

wotsthat wrote: »

• Full sovereignty over immigration.
  
• Not being bound by the ECJ.
  
• Unhindered access to the free market.

You don't know what more anyone could want or expect? Really?

Really, I don't know what you expect beyond that.

OK you might want more detail, but realistically going into a negotiation it's just not going to happen. It certainly doesn't with other international negotiations.

kabayiri

wotsthat wrote: »

...
Yes the list might be fairly bland but recently a British Prime Minister went to Europe with the most woolly list of demands and, surprise surprise, he came back declaring success. He's unemployed now. Let's avoid that sort of game with some clarity beforehand.

Cameron got nothing significant, because he didn't really go with the mandate of the people behind him.

I reckon the other EU countries knew this, and gambled on offering him nothing at all.

He should have held a pre-meeting referendum with a set of honest questions to establish the concerns of the people here.

If 80% of the voters had said migration worries them, and only 30% were worried on trade, then he would be able to make it abundantly clear where we stood.

It's not my fault this whole process has been done in such a cack handed fashion.

Remember that manifesto promise? A simple in/out question. It's been anything but simple.

wotsthat

Masomnia wrote: »

Really, I don't know what you expect beyond that.

OK you might want more detail, but realistically going into a negotiation it's just not going to happen. It certainly doesn't with other international negotiations.

The government issues position papers in advance of negotiations on a number of subjects. Why not Brexit?

Here's one..

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/474050/The_UK_s_position_on_Phase_IV_of_EU_ETS_.pdf

Let's stop pretending that Brexit needs to be handled completely differently to other government business.

wotsthat

kabayiri wrote: »

Cameron got nothing significant, because he didn't really go with the mandate of the people behind him.

I reckon the other EU countries knew this, and gambled on offering him nothing at all.

He should have held a pre-meeting referendum with a set of honest questions to establish the concerns of the people here.

If 80% of the voters had said migration worries them, and only 30% were worried on trade, then he would be able to make it abundantly clear where we stood.

It's not my fault this whole process has been done in such a cack handed fashion.

Remember that manifesto promise? A simple in/out question. It's been anything but simple.

We can't undo the mistakes of the recent past but allowing the government to be less transparent just adds to the list of mistakes.

There will be some sensitive negotiations ahead but you'd think I was asking for the UK's nuclear codes to be published online.