If we vote for Brexit what happens

mayonnaise

michaels wrote: »

And should the EU bring in laws that the majority of the British people did not support (for example continuing to run a budget that the auditors refuse to sign off due to corruption) but that the majority of the EU did, would my vote in any of those EU elections make the slightest difference?

If you apply this line of reasoning, you could say people living in Scotland or large swathes of The North don't live in a democracy because they mainly voted SNP or Labour and got a Conservative government.

Obviously there will be decisions made on a EU level where we don't get it our way. It's in the nature of a democratic majority vote.

Do you have issues with our unelected head of state, our unelected upper house, and an elected house of commons whose decisions are overturned by an unelected upper house? (Like we saw recently on tax credits)

If you're looking for democratic deficits, you need to look much closer to home.

setmefree2

setmefree2 wrote: »

The job losses that even Boris will admit to.

Boris wants to cut our ties with the world’s largest single market and the bottom of his “Nike tick” – the image he deployed to illustrate his economic projection - means the dole for many.

But you bury your head in the sand if you like.

Here's the Daily Star equivalent

Off his trolley: BoJo shamed for Brexit warning on British jobs

BORIS Johnson has been mocked after claiming British jobs will be slashed if Britain leaves the EU.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/499335/Off-his-trolley-Boris-Johnson-Brexit-warning-on-British-jobs-European-Union

CLAPTON

setmefree2 wrote: »

Here's the Daily Star equivalent



http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/499335/Off-his-trolley-Boris-Johnson-Brexit-warning-on-British-jobs-European-Union

The jobs are lost and gained every single day.

If there is a change in technology when jobs will be lost and new ones gained : it's the process whereby we move from an extremely poor agrarian society to a wealthy post industrial one.

Similarly if we change our trading patterns then some jobs will be lost and new ones gained.

There are no necessary job losses due to brexit as the mutual benefits of trade remain unchanged.
If the EU or the UK government take specific and deliberate steps to disadvantage their own citizens when the effects on jobs may be adverse.
However we don't know yet if the EU will deliberately increase (the already high) unemployment in the EU27 or they will behave in a rational manner.
Given the shocking recent history of the way the southern EU countries have been treated, there must of course be some concern about the competence and rationality of the EU leaders.

CLAPTON

mayonnaise wrote: »

If you apply this line of reasoning, you could say people living in Scotland or large swathes of The North don't live in a democracy because they mainly voted SNP or Labour and got a Conservative government.

Obviously there will be decisions made on a EU level where we don't get it our way. It's in the nature of a democratic majority vote.

Do you have issues with our unelected head of state, our unelected upper house, and an elected house of commons whose decisions are overturned by an unelected upper house? (Like we saw recently on tax credits)

If you're looking for democratic deficits, you need to look much closer to home.

100% agree
but the solution is to remedy the democratic issues here in the UK rather than compound them with additional undemocratic processes in europe.

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

100% agree
but the solution is to remedy the democratic issues here in the UK rather than compound them with additional undemocratic processes in europe.

Does this mean you favour further and further devolution? Would constituencies start to have their own local laws, local tax rates, etc, within the UK?

I know someone who advocated this actually. I don't know if this would be a good or bad thing. But where do you stop? Why state level? Why constituency level?

dekoder

Democracy is just an illusion put on by the rich for the masses that are generally easily swayed due to lack of education, brain capacity and "can't be bothered" attitude. The discussion should be about what's best for majority of UK people not some idealistic theories.

michaels wrote: »

And should the EU bring in laws that the majority of the British people did not support (for example continuing to run a budget that the auditors refuse to sign off due to corruption, insisting on agricultural tariffs to protect French farmers that add 15% to the average UK food bill) but that the majority of the EU did, would my vote in any of those EU elections make the slightest difference?

If they bring in such laws then that will be the time to evaluate UK's membership and decide on leaving, not now.

michaels

dekoder wrote: »

Democracy is just an illusion put on by the rich for the masses that are generally easily swayed due to lack of education, brain capacity and "can't be bothered" attitude. The discussion should be about what's best for majority of UK people not some idealistic theories.


If they bring in such laws then that will be the time to evaluate UK's membership and decide on leaving, not now.

Very good

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

Does this mean you favour further and further devolution? Would constituencies start to have their own local laws, local tax rates, etc, within the UK?

I know someone who advocated this actually. I don't know if this would be a good or bad thing. But where do you stop? Why state level? Why constituency level?

It is a very interesting question and worthy of debate.
I have no preset view but I am a pragmatic person so believe in solving problems in a reasonable rather than dogmatic way.
reducio ad absurdum does not appeal to me.

The UK, broadly speaking, works : I'm sure we could change the voting system, the power of regions etc so if that seemed to be favoured by the electorate, then lets give it a go.

mrginge

setmefree2 wrote: »

There is no chance that Turkey and the middle east will join the EU. So why would you right it if you weren't scaremongering?

No chance.
No chance at all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35741494

In exchange for this, the Turkish government is asking for the EU to increase its pledge to €6bn ($6.6bn; £4.64bn), European Parliament President Martin Schulz said.
Turkey is also seeking a faster path towards EU membership and the speeding up of plans to allow Turks visa-free travel in Europe.
Turkish PM Ahmet Davutoglu told reporters that he was proposing a "new package" designed to "strengthen Turkish-EU ties not only on the illegal migrants issue but also in all challenging issues as well as Turkey's EU accession process".

Generali

michaels wrote: »

And should the EU bring in laws that the majority of the British people did not support (for example continuing to run a budget that the auditors refuse to sign off due to corruption, insisting on agricultural tariffs to protect French farmers that add 15% to the average UK food bill) but that the majority of the EU did, would my vote in any of those EU elections make the slightest difference?

Would you similarly expect decisions made by the UK to be able to be vetoed by Hertfordshire? What about decisions made by Herts, should St Albans or Hitchen be able to overrule them?

If not, why should the UK be uniquely placed to overrule the larger body? If so then we need to rethink the constitution in a pretty fundamental way because I don't think that you'll ever get Hitchen, Wood Green and Llanelli to agree on everything.