If we vote for Brexit what happens

davomcdave

Conrad wrote: »

I hope May clarifies we'll be going for a hard (effective) Brexit in her speach on Tuesday. We need decisive action, not years of waffling at the EU squabble shop.

The EU has already made it clear that is all that's on offer; it's a hard Brexit or Remain. The latter isn't an option for Britain politically which leaves just a hard Brexit.

TrickyTree83

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I don't see it like that.

I also advocate personal responsibility.

If the vote to leave was a clear sign that we don't require single market access and that immigration needs to come down, then it was also in these areas a clear sign that neither region want or require development funding any longer. It was also a clear sign in Sunderland that Nissan, which is owned by Renault, is no longer required to employ people if the new free market can justify moving the operation.

This 'clear sign' works both ways, not just in your favour. If you think I'm ridiculous in my assumptions on this area then May et al are being ridiculous in their assumptions too.

How can you have such circular logic and run a business? Unless I've misunderstood and you don't run a business?

When 100% of the money we send to the EU goes to the EU and < 100% comes back, you think these regions shouldn't be developed by the government because they voted to leave? Yet you fail to appreciate that the money being spent by the EU was ours to begin with. So why should it not continue as it was, plus a smaller saving on top to the exchequer?

Either its spite or stupidity, I'll let you tell us which made you feel funding should be withdrawn.

mrginge

davomcdave wrote: »

The EU has already made it clear that is all that's on offer; it's a hard Brexit or Remain. The latter isn't an option for Britain politically which leaves just a hard Brexit.

In your previous post you alluded to the difficulties in getting the EU to agree a position due to its 28 different voices.

Yet in this post you claim the EU have done exactly that.

Can you tell me when the 27 other members got together to discuss and agree this position?

TrickyTree83

davomcdave wrote: »

If you want an take on things rather than a pithy soundbite then this is a good starting point:

http://community.openspending.org/resources/eu/

It's a part of the EU's attempts to address some of the same criticisms that led up to Brexit that have been ongoing for over a decade now. The EU recognises the need for reform but it is very hard to reform an organisation's governance where any change to governance structures requires a 28 - 0 vote in favour of change.

Open Knowledge itself is an organisation that, AFAKIS, supports data transparency and so supports the EU's attempts to be more transparent.

I work in governance and most organisations I speak with want to have better governance but don't know the best way to do it. The EU seems to be trying to get better although I'd agree with anyone that said it has a long way to go.

Like the lobbying transparency register that's voluntary for lobbyists, the EU really trying to 'drain the swamp' there aren't they?

mrginge

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

When 100% of the money we send to the EU goes to the EU and < 100% comes back....

According to some great sages, our 100% comes back to us as 1000%

Incredible stuff eh.
Makes me wonder which poor unfortunate countries are subsidising this economic miracle.

kabayiri

davomcdave wrote: »

...
I work in governance and most organisations I speak with want to have better governance but don't know the best way to do it. The EU seems to be trying to get better although I'd agree with anyone that said it has a long way to go.

The EU might have had a chance to learn some lessons and implement reform if it had a clearer time separation between adoption of the Euro and rapid expansion in terms of number of states.

You can not implement reforms easily amongst states at very different stages of development, and with differing goals.

As an example, the attitude towards the Cameron concessions was very different from state to state.

I don't understand an EU philosophy which encourages several million Poles to move to other countries for work, and at the same time pumps 300 BILLION+ Euros in to developing Poland. These seem conflicting goals.

kabayiri

mrginge wrote: »

...
Can you tell me when the 27 other members got together to discuss and agree this position?

I tend to have some sympathy with Michael Portillo's take on the negotiations :

- 2 years of not very much happening, followed by a lot of late night sessions and a 11th hour political agreement; one designed to make it look like 'your side' won out.

davomcdave

mrginge wrote: »

In your previous post you alluded to the difficulties in getting the EU to agree a position due to its 28 different voices.

Yet in this post you claim the EU have done exactly that.

Can you tell me when the 27 other members got together to discuss and agree this position?

The 28 members did when they signed up to the current EU constitution. For example, here is an interview with H!bner, the Polish chair of the EU constitutional committee.

http://www.dw.com/en/a-lot-of-questions-in-brussels-after-brexit-vote/a-19361061

The Commission, Council and the Parliament are assuming that the procedure for the separation will have two steps. First, the exit agreement will be agreed to and must be ratified by all the national Parliaments of the EU. Only after that can the negotiations about what the relationship to the third party state of Great Britain concerning trade and free movement begin.

In other words hard Brexit and then decide what to do next. The alternative is what the FT calls train wreck Brexit, where the ratification of A50 can't be agreed by member Governments and Britain ends up leaving without any sort of agreement at all.

Soft Brexit is a fantasy peddled to those suffering buyers' remorse. It's not on the table for negotiation as it can't be.

MobileSaver

Rinoa wrote: »

Back in the day Grimsby was the busiest fishing port in the world, boasting 700 trawlers. Then we joined the EU. Today it has 5.

You know someone is talking out of their backside when they blame the EU for Grimsby's demise from the busiest fishing port in the world.

Grimsby's demise was primarily of its own making through rampant over-fishing and was brought to a head with the Cod Wars (which we lost) against Iceland (which wasn't in the EU.)

No doubt Rinoa and those who thanked her post also believe the EU is responsible for the closing of all our coal mines? Why stop there though? I'm sure the EU must have had a hand in taking our cotton industry from the "workshop of the world" to all but extinct by the 80's?

gfplux

Finally some real news. Next week May will be laying out Britains negotiating position for leaving the EU.
If the Sunday papers are anything to go by the speech is being heavily leaked and lots of talk of a hard Brexit. However I am waiting for the speech. Finally some action. She might even clarify the date at the end of March when she will pull the trigger.
I hate those rumours of a possible delay.

I see the pound lost some of its overvaluation last week and should continue the same direction next week.