If we vote for Brexit what happens

Yah_Boo_Sux

gfplux wrote: »

Highly unlikely as I have read (no link) that the EU will choose a country that will be attractive to the skilled workers they will have to recruit or relocate. In addition good infrastructure and ancillary pharma Company's

Ah, you mean the EU will choose a country that benefits the original member states rather than allowing a newer member the opportunity? How then will these members ever achieve the infrastructure or the skills needed if the EU continues to deny them the chance? Is that not the same as restricting their opportunities for advancement?

gfplux

Yah_Boo_Sux wrote: »

Ah, you mean the EU will choose a country that benefits the original member states rather than allowing a newer member the opportunity? How then will these members ever achieve the infrastructure or the skills needed if the EU continues to deny them the chance? Is that not the same as restricting their opportunities for advancement?

But what does that matter to Britain. When Britain was a member that was the time when Britain could use its influence to change things.
The time for Britain to criticise the EU is over.
Britain is leaving, negotiations start w/c 19th June.

always_sunny

gfplux wrote: »

But what does that matter to Britain. When Britain was a member that was the time when Britain could use its influence to change things.
The time for Britain to criticise the EU is over.
Britain is leaving, negotiations start w/c 19th June.

Absolutely and the sad thing is that even after this departure, [most likely] the UK will still look at the EU.

For these agencies, it doesn't matter what the UK think, feel, believes or stands, by the time they relocate they'll be a foreign matter.
It's like Messico or Canada having an input on the location of FDA. Yes, both on the North American continent but not in the United States.

The "We have voted to leave the EU, but not Europe" is going to be difficult when most of Europe is the EU*.

* Yes, yes, any day now it'll collapse, any day.

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

But what does that matter to Britain. When Britain was a member that was the time when Britain could use its influence to change things.

To block things, yes. Change was nigh impossible. The agenda has never changed.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

To block things, yes. Change was nigh impossible. The agenda has never changed.

The core EU states always saw UK as an outsider anyway. It goes back to the days of Maggie T.

Is there any major EU policy which changed because of views from the UK?

I'm struggling to think of one.

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

I'm struggling to think of one.

A federalist agenda may well be of benefit to the UK in the longer term. As individual states will no longer be able to pic n mix their internal policies to suit themselves. Direction will instead come from above. Corporate taxation and VAT spring to mind.

always_sunny

Thrugelmir wrote: »

To block things, yes. Change was nigh impossible. The agenda has never changed.

Change to what? This is the usual representation of Britain as the victim in the EU.
Without specific examples of exactly what the UK was not able to change and only block, the same scenario is bound to happen over and over.

What was a scenario that the UK could not change that despite an EU majority consensus?

It is very possible that the UK was/is not a good 'fit' for the EU.

wotsthat

kabayiri wrote: »

Is there any major EU policy which changed because of views from the UK?

I'm struggling to think of one.

There are a couple of reasons for that

(1) You, like most of us, have paid scant attention to how the EU functions or how the UK influences policy. Of course, we're all over it now - I wish we'd been so interested in all things Europe a few decades ago. On here I've even seen a German local election result scrutinised to assess its impact on EU policy. Too little too late.

(2) The UK has been generally supportive of EU policy. It's not as if the EU has forced us to give up our first born although I understand some are upset they're limited to buying vacuum cleaners with the power of only two fully grown horses.

Thrugelmir

always_sunny wrote: »

It is very possible that the UK was/is not a good 'fit' for the EU.

Given the divergence of views and opinions. What the "EU" should be. Is perhaps the issue. Very difficult to reach agreement at a National level. Let alone across 27 sovereign states. Too much bending of the rules. Refusal to consider change if it doesn't suit. For the electorate there's no power to influence either.

always_sunny

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Given the divergence of views and opinions. What the "EU" should be. Is perhaps the issue. Very difficult to reach agreement at a National level. Let alone across 27 sovereign states. Too much bending of the rules. Refusal to consider change if it doesn't suit. For the electorate there's no power to influence either.

Absolutely, after living in the UK for few years now and observing how the countries within the Union respond to each others I am surprised the UK lasted this long in the EU (and as United Kingdom to be honest).

Similar argy-bargy can be seen (at least looking at comments in most) in threads/articles about Scotland (referendum) and NI (possible IE reunification) and it'd be fair to believe English* would be more than happy to cut them lose. I find it really odd for a country to be so disunited, possibly it is cultural or maybe generational.

The other 27 sovereign states seems to be okay hanging together, definitely they seem to have better cohesion than England and Scotland. A year later, this Brexit domino effect has failed to materialise.

*English apparently are supporting the entire UK, the EU and possibly the world.