If we vote for Brexit what happens

Tromking

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Yes, wonderful unless you're disabled, poor or immigrant....so not lovely if you're any of those categories......

It's all relative CK.
Romania #58 out of 80 incidently.:)

cogito

vivatifosi wrote: »

Interesting spat involving Donald Tusk. He is due to stand for another term and the UK has been working on its relationship with him as he will be pivotal in negotiations. He is backed by pretty much all the countries. However his home nation, Poland, who we are also cultivating relations with, want to put another candidate forward as Tusk -a former Polish PM - is seen as meddling.

We have also been cultivating relationships with the Poles, who think that we should back their new candidate. Messy:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/07/theresa-may-diplomatic-corner-poland-demands-uk-backing-political/

It won't be. The Countries supporting Tusk will vote until they have the majority and Tusk will be announced as winner before the UK get to vote. Simples.

CKhalvashi

Tromking wrote: »

It's all relative CK.
Romania #58 out of 80 incidently.:)

Romania isn't about to lose its single market access, so looking relatively at a situation from my needs, I know where the money would be better placed.

I don't really care where it goes at the moment, but it definitely won't be in the UK as was planned this time last year

mayonnaise

Tromking wrote: »

https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/3042585/a-new-study-says-the-uk-is-the-third-best-country-in-the-world-after-switzerland-and-canada/

Cheer up Remoaners, you continue to live in a wonderful country! ��

So...we live in a wonderful country, while being a member of the EU.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Tromking

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Romania isn't about to lose its single market access, so looking relatively at a situation from my needs, I know where the money would be better placed.

I don't really care where it goes at the moment, but it definitely won't be in the UK as was planned this time last year

Its not all about money CK.
Speaking personally and not like you (I assume?) having had to move country to improve my financial prospects, this index is quite interesting as it reminds us that things like culture and the advancement of the human condition through science is important also.Aren't you in the music business?
As a frontline public servant, citizenship may mean different things to me than you, it certainly isn't part of any thought process I have to declare where my money would be better placed.
As someone once said, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

Tromking

mayonnaise wrote: »

So...we live in a wonderful country, while being a member of the EU.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Note the #1 ranked country in this index.
Whispers.........<Switzerland>

Fella

mayonnaise wrote: »

So...we live in a wonderful country, while being a member of the EU.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Although it wasn't your intention, your post highlights a large part of the problem with EU membership: The fact that the EU isn't a static entity. It's changed beyond recognition from what the UK voted to join (the EEC) in 1973.

These were the members then. Largely a bunch of rich Western Europe countries:

Belgium
Denmark
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
United Kingdom


From 1973-2000 the countries below joined. Still a reasonably wealthy bunch and still very heavily a Western European organization.

Greece 1981
Portugal 1986
Spain 1986
Austria 1995
Finland 1995
Sweden 1995


Since 2000 these are the new joiners. Almost all relatively poor countries from Eastern Europe:

Czech Republic 2004
Estonia 2004
Hungary 2004
Latvia 2004
Lithuania 2004
Malta 2004
Poland 2004
Slovakia 2004
Slovenia 2004
Bulgaria 2007
Romania 2007
Croatia 2013

Organizations like the EU simply do not work when you have countries of such unequal wealth & living standards. And why on earth would a wealthy country like the UK choose to cede it's sovereignty on a range of different issues in return for a 1/27th vote in a pool of countries many of whom have interests that are very definitely not our own, and who will (quite correctly) vote for measures that favour their population & economy over ours every time?


Thus has the "EU" changed utterly since we joined, with never the slightest opportunity for anybody in the UK to vote against it. Until the referendum.


And of course the EU doesn't even stop here. Let's take a look at the countries on the waiting list:

Albania
Bosnia
Croatia
Iceland
Kosovo
Macedonia
Montenegro
Serbia
Turkey


So that's an even poorer bunch of countries, which will cause even greater problems.

Sources:
http://www.eucountrylist.com/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11283616

Sapphire

Organizations like the EU simply do not work when you have countries of such unequal wealth & living standards. And why on earth would a wealthy country like the UK choose to cede it's sovereignty on a range of different issues in return for a 1/27th vote in a pool of countries many of whom have interests that are very definitely not our own, and who will (quite correctly) vote for measures that favour their population & economy over ours every time?

Thus has the "EU" changed utterly since we joined, with never the slightest opportunity for anybody in the UK to vote against it. Until the referendum.


Yes – everything you've said in your post, plus the differences in history and culture, which are deeply ingrained in the nations you mention, particularly the oldest ones. :cool:

always_sunny

Fella wrote: »

Although it wasn't your intention, your post highlights a large part of the problem with EU membership: The fact that the EU isn't a static entity. It's changed beyond recognition from what the UK voted to join (the EEC) in 1973.

These were the members then. Largely a bunch of rich Western Europe countries:

Belgium
Denmark
France
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
United Kingdom


From 1973-2000 the countries below joined. Still a reasonably wealthy bunch and still very heavily a Western European organization.

Greece 1981
Portugal 1986
Spain 1986
Austria 1995
Finland 1995
Sweden 1995


Since 2000 these are the new joiners. Almost all relatively poor countries from Eastern Europe:

Czech Republic 2004
Estonia 2004
Hungary 2004
Latvia 2004
Lithuania 2004
Malta 2004
Poland 2004
Slovakia 2004
Slovenia 2004
Bulgaria 2007
Romania 2007
Croatia 2013

Organizations like the EU simply do not work when you have countries of such unequal wealth & living standards. And why on earth would a wealthy country like the UK choose to cede it's sovereignty on a range of different issues in return for a 1/27th vote in a pool of countries many of whom have interests that are very definitely not our own, and who will (quite correctly) vote for measures that favour their population & economy over ours every time?


Thus has the "EU" changed utterly since we joined, with never the slightest opportunity for anybody in the UK to vote against it. Until the referendum.


And of course the EU doesn't even stop here. Let's take a look at the countries on the waiting list:

Albania
Bosnia
Croatia
Iceland
Kosovo
Macedonia
Montenegro
Serbia
Turkey


So that's an even poorer bunch of countries, which will cause even greater problems.

Sources:
http://www.eucountrylist.com/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11283616

You make it sound as if it just happened like that, hoping no one would notice countries joining the EU.

The UK government was a participant in all those accessions being a signatory to the treaties. The same UK government had powers to decide restrictions for new member but chose not to have any. From what you detail in your post and what happened in reality the main problem you highlight is that leaders in the UK implemented what the country (allegedly) didn't want.

The UK is represented in the European Parliament with a quota based on the size of the country (UK has 73 members, France 74, tiny Malta 6, etc).

A wealthy country like the UK decided to join the EU because at that time it was a poor country and the first application was vetoed by France. The UK is still in parts fairly poor, just mention cut in benefits and a big chunk of the country is going to be in trouble.

Culturally people in the UK are very different from continental Europe, Brexit will be good for all parties.

CKhalvashi

Tromking wrote: »

Its not all about money CK.

It is about having a decent standard of living, and running a business that's designed from the outset to be pan-European, I am worried about my personal future within the UK.

Speaking personally and not like you (I assume?) having had to move country to improve my financial prospects, this index is quite interesting as it reminds us that things like culture and the advancement of the human condition through science is important also.Aren't you in the music business?

I'm happy to discuss the specific circumstances privately, but not over a public forum, on the condition you guarantee that it remains confidential.

What I do for work is irrelevant to the specifics of what I think (other than relying on the single market), however I do agree with you completely on the points you make above.

As a frontline public servant, citizenship may mean different things to me than you, it certainly isn't part of any thought process I have to declare where my money would be better placed.
As someone once said, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

I'm going to go off on a bit of a tangent here, but please do bear with me and you'll get my point.

Citizenship is the right to live somewhere as a citizen, residency is the right to live somewhere, not necessarily on the same terms as a citizen. They are for all intents and purposes for most points I make the same thing.

The UK is a relatively business-friendly country (despite allegations of being tied down by EU tape, I haven't seen that). What's important for me is access to the 500 million consumers I have access to now.

I'd prefer if the parts below weren't quoted, as it may or may not disappear later due to personal info. If you want to quote snippets of it though to reply, that's fine. Please respect my wishes on this, and remember I'd happily do the same for anyone else.

In reality, that will probably look as more of an investment split between the UK and EU-27, however my thought process at this time is looking at what investment needs to go where to maintain strong growth and access to what is needed, where it is needed. I appreciate I'm looking at the situation more/less purely as an investor at the moment though, rather than as a resident. I am not abandoning the UK, merely Brexit-proofing my business model.

I've always found the UK very hospitable to international music talent, including those that are not necessarily household names. I hope that it will continue on both a financial and cultural level, and that (with PPE visas and customs clearances of course, so more red tape than now) we will be in a position to viably still bring EU nationals into the UK on tour. I will also continue to support British takent that wishes to tour Europe, offering similar services in return. That is what I can offer the UK, and what I hope you will accept as a good contribution to society.

My parents both (IMO) make a positive contribution to the UK too. My mother is a specialist in the NHS (not a doctor, but works extremely hard, and is qualified to train medical students in her specialism whilst being very much front line too) and my father works in the aviation industry at one of the fastest growing airports in the UK, again in a front line role.