If we vote for Brexit what happens

Filo25

mrginge wrote: »

So you want to introduce a two speed Europe, where those outside the core have a role in deciding the policies of those within the core.

You wish to re-evaluate EUR membership for countries that are deemed non-compliant. How will you pursuade these countries to ditch the Euro? Why should the UK, as a peripheral country have any say in that decision?

What will your position be if the other countries do not accept your proposals?

No I don't think the Periphery should be able to enforce policy on the Core nations, almost the opposite in fact my concern would be that the Core nations should not be able to enforce policy on the
Periphery, as I think we all realise that there is to say the least little appetite in the UK at present for further enforced integration.

I don't see any option but for the failing Eurozone economies to reform or for the Eurozone itself to reform, we should at least be one of the nations making that clear, do I think people will listen to us at this moment in time, no, but its going to have to happen sooner or later, those economies can't continue to perform as they have been indefinitely without consequences.

I accept our influence on Eurozone members is limited but its more than it would be as someone outside the EU altogether.

Equally the issue with trade deals post Brexit is that you also need a counterparty to agree to terms that you find agreeable within a reasonable timeframe, we can be as keen to make trade deals as you like but its not just in our hands.

From a UK point of view the first of the 2 on my wishlist, is pretty much becoming a redline formally or informally anyway, ultimately if the UK finds itself being forced down the path of significant further integration without consent, we are going to have another future referendum and we will vote to leave (assuming we don't this time around)

The second point is something that is more for the good of the EU and indeed Europe in general itself than for ourselves quite honestly, internal strains within the EU and the nations with failing economies will only increase the longer their economic crisis continues for.

CLAPTON

Filo25 wrote: »

Structurally a clear move towards core and periphery, as the biggest economy by far of the periphery nations, with the most power in negotiations we should help to ensure the powers of the periphery nations are protected, and we are not forced to a significantly down the route of further economic or political integration without consent.

Sooner or later the EU will have to address the issues the Euro is causing the Mediterranean nations in particular, we should be helping to push that towards sooner, either those countries will need to take some very strong economic reforms or we will need to start work on a mechanism to unwind the Eurozone for certain nations who have so far proven unwilling or unable to adapt to the new economic environment they find themselves in within the Euro.

I guess one can equal the 'short term' losses due to the euro and the general incompetent EU economic management, with the possible short term problems with brexit.

It is vastly more probably that any brexit problems will be addressed and resolved quickly than the EU27 problems ever being addressed.

kabayiri

mayonnaise wrote: »

London is rather 'remain' because much of London's economy is intrinsically linked with the EU. Nothing to do with the proportion of migrants.

It's lucky that there is so much love for London from the people in the other regions then.

If you look at people pumping out leave/remain stuff on facebook, a fair chunk of the Leave is anti-establishment in my view. For some London is the establishment.

That must be a worry for Cameron's team, because he knows there is very little he can offer the people of GeordieLand or ScouseVille.

mrginge

Filo25 wrote: »

No I don't think the Periphery should be able to enforce policy on the Core nations, almost the opposite in fact my concern would be that the Core nations should not be able to enforce policy on the
Periphery, as I think we all realise that there is to say the least little appetite in the UK at present for further enforced integration.

How will the periphery countries decide which policies they wish to follow? Will they all have to agree or will it be a free for all?
If it's the former doesn't that simply create EU div 2 with all the same problems, doubling up the beaurocracy and loading more costs onto the process?
If it's the latter then isn't that effectively against the entire principles of the EU and render those countries participation pointless?

I don't see any option but for the failing Eurozone economies to reform or for the Eurozone itself to reform, we should at least be one of the nations making that clear, do I think people will listen to us at this moment in time, no, but its going to have to happen sooner or later, those economies can't continue to perform as they have been indefinitely without consequences.

Why is that anything to do with the U.K.?
We have just told the EU that we're not interested in further integration. Why should our opinion be any more important to them than any other non-eurozone country?
It's like Canada telling us to reform our banking system because they're part of the commonwealth.

I accept our influence on Eurozone members is limited but its more than it would be as someone outside the EU altogether.

Can you provide any evidence for this?
I could equally argue that influence is actually diminished by being in the EU because our inability to act independently prevents us from applying pressure.

Equally the issue with trade deals post Brexit is that you also need a counterparty to agree to terms that you find agreeable within a reasonable timeframe, we can be as keen to make trade deals as you like but its not just in our hands.

Why do you think we need a trade deal?
In the nine or so years that the EU-Canada deal has taken, has either party suffered from having to trade without one?

From a UK point of view the first of the 2 on my wishlist, is pretty much becoming a redline formally or informally anyway, ultimately if the UK finds itself being forced down the path of significant further integration without consent, we are going to have another future referendum and we will vote to leave (assuming we don't this time around)
The second point is something that is more for the good of the EU and indeed Europe in general itself than for ourselves quite honestly, internal strains within the EU and the nations with failing economies will only increase the longer their economic crisis continues for.

So you are 'in' on the basis that you'll get another shot if things change in the future.
The problem with that approach is that there isn't a box for 'in-for-the-time-being'. You want reform, and another referendum if further changes are proposed, but you have zero guarantee of either of those things happening.

Isn't it better to vote leave, making the EU sit up and listen, force them to have to deal with their issues and then let them come back to us with a proposal for a new relationship?

michaels

As part of Cameron's 'renegotiation' he gave up a veto that the 'periphery' had over the 'core' so now the core can take decisions that may well be to the material disadvantage of the periphery and yet we will no longer have any ability to veto such changes :eek:

The Labour leadership position is very odd: their core constituency is almost certainly in the Brexit camp and yet whilst on all other issues the leadership has taken the left wing grass roots position at odds with the more centrist 'educated' PLP on this one Corbyn is in bed with Mandelson - strange indeed. His justification seems to be that the EU supports 'social justice' that the democratically elected UK representatives would never support, a brilliant anti-democracy arguement from someone who is going through contortions to back a positon that he opposes on ideological grounds :rotfl:

Filo25

I honestly have spent too much time on this today already, so won't go through every single point in detail.

In response to your point that I am in for the time being, I don't see what is so ludicrous about that, why on earth would I vote to leave the EU on the basis of things that haven't yet happened and may never happen, I though Remain was supposedly the "Project Fear" side, if Remain wins this referendum it won't be by much and it will be pretty clear for all concerned that there is no appetite for any further forced integration here.

You seem to be suggesting the Boris Johnson approach, vote leave, even though you don't want to leave in the hope that maybe we get a better deal at the end of it, of course maybe we don't.

The whole point of a referendum for me is that if we vote to stay we should stay and if we vote to leave we should leave, maybe that's just my simplistic view of democracy on this case.

I have said many times on this thread that I think we will need trade deals to replace the lost trade which we will have with the EU, I'm not saying that will be economic armageddon or that we will become a third world country overnight, just that we will be worse off than we would have been with free access to the EU market.

Anyway that's enough repetition for one day I think, some productive work is calling.

masterwilde

ANSWER THIS PLEASE

Long Term the EU is growing am a huge rate, in the next 5 years 7 countries will enter, all poor. there are rumbles that a further 9 will be considered between 2020 and 2030.

How is the EU supposed to grow economically as a whole?

How will the EU generate enough money to rebuild at least 9 countries (Spain Italy, Greece and 6 of the upcoming 7)?

Filo25

michaels wrote: »

As part of Cameron's 'renegotiation' he gave up a veto that the 'periphery' had over the 'core' so now the core can take decisions that may well be to the material disadvantage of the periphery and yet we will no longer have any ability to veto such changes :eek:

The Labour leadership position is very odd: their core constituency is almost certainly in the Brexit camp and yet whilst on all other issues the leadership has taken the left wing grass roots position at odds with the more centrist 'educated' PLP on this one Corbyn is in bed with Mandelson - strange indeed. His justification seems to be that the EU supports 'social justice' that the democratically elected UK representatives would never support, a brilliant anti-democracy arguement from someone who is going through contortions to back a positon that he opposes on ideological grounds :rotfl:

And then I get pulled back in again.

From the Labour point of view, any party members I know are pretty much pro-EU.

Obviously they may feel different if Comrade Corbyn was in charge and the EU was stopping him building the socialist utopia, but even amongst Labour activists I have my doubt how many can envision PM Corbyn anytime soon.

I think a lot on the left, rightly or wrongly, view the EU as providing some checks and balances on Conservative governments that obviously they don't have much affection for.

Anti-democratic, certainly yes to an extent, generally justified by the perceived democratic deficit in the FPTP system, at least when it doesn't give you the result you want.

I don't think Corbyn is particularly going through contortions on this one though oddly enough, I genuinely think in the current circumstances he would rather stay in the EU, surprisingly he actually polls better than some politicians on this issue presumably because he actually acknowledges shades of grey in the debate rather than the rather more black and white view elsewhere.

mrginge

Corbyn has nowhere to go on this. He can't be openly pro because
A. He isn't and no-one will believe him
B. He risks a Scotland-esque grassroots desertion from the left of the party
He can't go openly exit because
A. The PLP will declare open war rather than sitting back and just letting him cause his own downfall.
B. He risks a Scotland-esque desertion from the right-leaning blairite grassroots.

The guy is toast whichever way he goes.

Crashy_Time

masterwilde wrote: »

ANSWER THIS PLEASE

Long Term the EU is growing am a huge rate, in the next 5 years 7 countries will enter, all poor. there are rumbles that a further 9 will be considered between 2020 and 2030.

How is the EU supposed to grow economically as a whole?

How will the EU generate enough money to rebuild at least 9 countries (Spain Italy, Greece and 6 of the upcoming 7)?

The EZ is going to collapse, those at the "top table" don`t want to engage with this reality, hence all the spin and rhetoric. If it doesn`t break soon the far right will once again be on the march in Europe, scary times.