If we vote for Brexit what happens

Sapphire

antrobus wrote: »

Mrs Merkel is not unelected. She is the elected member of the Bundestag for Stralsund–Nordvorpommern–Rügen. Junkers is not German; the fact that his given name is Jean-Claude should be a clue.:)

And the ever-closer union is written into the treaties. It applies to everyone. Except us, we've now got a pass.:)

None of the Brussels 'club' was voted in by British people, as far as I can recall (yes, I did know Junckers was not German, but he might as well be). No treaties were agreed democratically by Britain, with a vote for all.

As far as most Brits were concerned, we were part of an economic union, not a political one that could dictate to us what laws we should adopt, for example. The last time I looked, Britain was a sovereign country, and the EU (specifically Germany) had no right to dictate to what I thought were sovereign nations what they should do.

There should indeed be trade agreements between countries, decided on an individual basis, but I believe in the democratic rights of nations to shape their own destinies, according to the wishes of their people.

Tromking

Oh dear.
Cameron nods his head in agreement while a foreign leader threatens the British People with "consequences" in the event of Brexit. 'Call Me Dave' won`t last past the Tory Conference.

BobQ

mayonnaise wrote: »

Refugees and illegals don't tend to come over by Eurostar.
They (try to) come by clinging to trucks and vans going through Eurotunnel and the Ferry Operators, all of them private concerns.
The first thing they will do when setting foot on British soil is shout 'asylum'. Or are you suggesting we bail out of the UN and its refugee conventions also?
Your idea of returning them straight away is a Angry Little England Supremacist's fantasy and nothing more.

I'd stock up on some tents if I was Kent County Council as preparation for a brexit.

I suspect the solution would be for France to erect multilingual signs saying. "If you want to travel on a lorry we will stop you if you choose an EU lorry, but get on a British lorry we will not bother you." So the British haulage firms would get the fines.:)

antrobus

Sapphire wrote: »

None of the Brussels 'club' was voted in by British people, as far as I can recall (yes, I did know Junckers was not German, but he might as well be). ....

None of the Whitehall club was voted in by British people either.

Sapphire wrote: »

...No treaties were agreed democratically by Britain, with a vote for all.....

We did have a referendum in 1975 that agreed the original treaty. I believe that was democratic, with a vote for all. It's all our own bl00dy fault if we didn't have any subsequent referenda/referendums on Maastricht, Lisbon etc.

But never mind, we're getting one soon, aren't we?

Sapphire wrote: »

...As far as most Brits were concerned, we were part of an economic union, not a political one that could dictate to us what laws we should adopt, for example. ...

Well yes, that b*gg*r Heath did lie through his teeth about it, didn't he? But still, that 'ever closer union' bit was never actually a secret, being there in black and white, it was simply a question of whether or not they really meant it.

Sapphire wrote: »

...The last time I looked, Britain was a sovereign country, and the EU (specifically Germany) had no right to dictate to what I thought were sovereign nations what they should do.....

As far as I'm aware the UK is a sovereign country. The kind of sovereign country that dutifully complies with FACTA and ITAR and suchlike. Sovereignty is more of a concept than a reality. Depending on how many aircraft carriers you have.

Sapphire wrote: »

...There should indeed be trade agreements between countries, decided on an individual basis, but I believe in the democratic rights of nations to shape their own destinies, according to the wishes of their people.

'Shape their own destinies' seems rather a melodramatic phrase to deploy as regards trade agreements which notmally involve more mundane issues such as agreeing the quota for industrial cheese and so forth.

If the wishes of the people are so important, does this mean to say that every trade agreement will need to be put to a referendum? Normally what happens is that a bunch of civil servants spend ages going to lots of meetings which eventually results in a text which gets nodded through a parliament or similar so that some politician can stick his name at the bottom and then go to a party and get drunk. Is that not good enough?

Rinoa

setmefree2 wrote: »

German finance minister undermines key Brexit claims

Quote:
"Nonsense," says the Leave campaign who maintain that Britain can quit the EU, retain the parts of the single market they want (free movement of goods and services) and stop EU migrants from coming to Britain (end the free movement of labour).
Germany's finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble appears to have just said that will not be possible.

The EU have just negotiated that exact same deal with Canada.

Generali

Rinoa wrote: »

The EU have just negotiated that exact same deal with Canada.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/september/tradoc_152806.pdf

No they haven't. Tarrifs remain in place for the next seven years (Annex 2-A) and there are a whole host of exemptions on freely traded goods from alcohol to bison meat.

Chickens over the 'access commitment' quantity for broilers attract a tariff of 238% for example although their livers only attract an over access commitment tariff of 154.5%. Boneless or bone-in turkey attracts a tariff of 165% but 241% if over the access commitment or 154.5% if exported as turkey paste (unless it is in a tin or glass jar of course).

It's complex stuff and not remotely like dealing with a single market. Brie has a tariff of 245.5% whereas Gouda has a tariff of 3.32c/kg. Chrysanthemums have a tariff of 8% but roses have a tariff of 10.5% and other flowers 12.5%.

Oh and you can't sell motor insurance in Saskatchewan or take deposits (like a bank does) in Quebec under the rules of which there are 1598 pages in the abbreviated version.

mayonnaise

angrypirate wrote: »

What are you talking about? Holland is saying he is going to stop UK border agency checking passports on French soil - that is what the Sangette Protocol was all about. They arent going to take the fences down next to the tunnel entrance / ferry ports

Yes. Do keep up.

leveller2911 wrote: »

Do you seriously think they would stay in kent?.:rotfl:

You really didn't think that through Mayo....

You're right. Some of them might even end up in East Sussex. :rotfl:

michaels

mayonnaise wrote: »

Refugees and illegals don't tend to come over by Eurostar.
They (try to) come by clinging to trucks and vans going through Eurotunnel and the Ferry Operators, all of them private concerns.
The first thing they will do when setting foot on British soil is shout 'asylum'. Or are you suggesting we bail out of the UN and its refugee conventions also?
Your idea of returning them straight away is a Angry Little England Supremacist's fantasy and nothing more.

I'd stock up on some tents if I was Kent County Council as preparation for a brexit.

Dublin accord?

Rinoa

Generali wrote: »

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/september/tradoc_152806.pdf

No they haven't. Tarrifs remain in place for the next seven years (Annex 2-A) and there are a whole host of exemptions on freely traded goods from alcohol to bison meat.

Chickens over the 'access commitment' quantity for broilers attract a tariff of 238% for example although their livers only attract an over access commitment tariff of 154.5%. Boneless or bone-in turkey attracts a tariff of 165% but 241% if over the access commitment or 154.5% if exported as turkey paste (unless it is in a tin or glass jar of course).

It's complex stuff and not remotely like dealing with a single market. Brie has a tariff of 245.5% whereas Gouda has a tariff of 3.32c/kg. Chrysanthemums have a tariff of 8% but roses have a tariff of 10.5% and other flowers 12.5%.

Oh and you can't sell motor insurance in Saskatchewan or take deposits (like a bank does) in Quebec under the rules of which there are 1598 pages in the abbreviated version.

I think your link is 2 years out of date. Have a look at the latest version:

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/

There's a few exceptions related to stuff like poultry and milk, which will still be a problem. But 98% of current trade will be 100 % duty free when agreement is signed, probably this autumn.

Generali

Rinoa wrote: »

I think your link is 2 years out of date. Have a look at the latest version:

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/

There's a few exceptions related to stuff like poultry and milk, which will still be a problem. But 98% of current trade will be 100 % duty free when agreement is signed, probably this autumn.

It's the same document. It was agreed in 2014 and passed into law in 2016.

Yes, many industrial products will be free of duty but complex and contradictory rules remain about farm products and services.

As I say, it will remain illegal for UK banks to take deposits in Quebec and for UK insurers to offer motor insurance in Saskatchewan.

Any broker wishing to do business in Nunavut with non-Nunavut resident brokers must complete a separate registration.

Any Canadian firm wishing to supply medical or social services in the UK (excluding aged care and convalescent facilities) may be subject to arbitrarily being banned from doing business by the UK Government. Canadian firms can't provide any funeral services in Sweden. Special licences are required for Canadian transport firms to operate in Spain. Canadian companies can't set up security services branches in Spain. Canadian companies need a special licence to provide services to fish farms in Slovakia. Canadian firms can't sell insurance in Portugal.

The list of exemptions to free trade is immense.