If we vote for Brexit what happens

Generali

A couple of really good articles on Brexit:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/scary-monsters-david-cameron-will-invoke-the-threat-of-jihadis-russia-and-crime-to-win-an-eu-invote/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12100645/A-vote-to-leave-the-EU-is-no-guarantee-wed-shake-off-its-malign-influence.html

The general case for leaving the EU is clear enough: Britain is the world’s fifth-largest economy, amply capable of surviving on its own. Not that we’d be on our own: we have the Commonwealth, a network of trading partners perfect for the globalised world. Next time George Osborne goes wooing the Chinese, he could do so as a Chancellor who actually has the authority to agree to new trade deals. We’re a globally-minded country, and one that’s losing patience up with the EU’s protectionism, paranoia and insularity. A vote to leave the EU wouldn’t be a vote for Little England, but for global Britain. Most referendum campaigns start in such generalities, but are then decided by the nitty-gritty. This was the case in Scotland, when Alex Salmond was stumped by a recurring question: what did he plan to use for a currency? If he wanted the pound, he’d have to sign up to the Bank of England’s financial regulation. So he would have the same rules, but without any influence: what kind of independence would that be?

The same detailed questions now confront those advocating a “out” vote. Their goal would be for Britain to sign its own free trade agreements with everyone, including one with the EU. But, as Norway found, these come with strings attached; it ended up having to swallow the very EU regulations and directives that we are trying to escape. To Jens Stoltenberg, Norway’s former Prime Minister, this was “fax democracy”: an awful system where supposedly sovereign nation was still given edicts by Brussels. Worse, Norway still has to pay annual dues to the EU, working out at £81 a head. Not so much cheaper than Britain’s £105 a head.

Generali

JoeJoe1 wrote: »

What is interesting is that when you ask a "Yes" voter if they want to adopt the Euro and have greater integration in Europe, they always say "No". They want the status-quo of us remaining one foot in and one foot out. Do they not realise that a UK "Yes" vote will be taken by politicians as the green light for greater EU/UK integration?

Either you want to be in the EU or you want to be out. The halfway house we currently have isn't working and will become increasingly untenable as the EU moved inexorably towards closer integration.

Ah yes, the false dichotomy. Thank you for introducing that logical falacy.

I suspect we could collect them on this thread. I love a good false dichotomy.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

Ah yes, the false dichotomy. Thank you for introducing that logical falacy.

I suspect we could collect them on this thread. I love a good false dichotomy.

I disagree, when the UK votes in, EU cheerleaders will have much less incentive to worry about UK concerns when setting policy as when GO or who ever says 'No, no, no' the response will be 'Go ahead and leave then if you can't put up with this treaty change'.

(Although of course fewer treaty changes are needed now as they are troublesome, existing treaties already include enabling clauses to avoid the awkwardness of voters rejection.)

kabayiri

The EU is doing a pretty good job of destroying itself anyway.

The migrant crisis will drag on throughout this year and just expose the divisions between EU states that were always there. I guess to Hungary the term "unity" means joining up the fences to keep unwanteds out.

Then there is handling of the basket case economies in the Eurozone. Greece is off the front pages, I suppose that counts as good news somehow.

Not content with slow growth the major EU car manufacturers will now be persecuted for emission tampering allegations, which every man and his dog is now an expert in. Renault might as well just introduce a new sackcloth and ashes paintwork.

Yeah, it sounds perfect. Where do I sign?

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

The migrant crisis will drag on throughout this year and just expose the divisions between EU states that were always there.

The sheer scale of the crisis is going to cause huge issues at local level. We are witnessing a movement of people not seen in Europe since WW2. Merkel is already fighting for her own credibility at home.

ruggedtoast

It needn't be the end of the world if we left, but it we do go there is one thing that is very clear. We won't be leaving because of a rational and considered cost benefit analysis. We'll be going because of a fevered zeitgeist of misinformation, xenophobia, and borderline racism engendered by the ranting UKIP zealots and their lackeys in the Tory press.

Pretty much every step after that will be retrograde and inward looking.

Considering the Tories managed to take a dead cert (that even Alex Salmond said was a once in a lifetime event) in the Scottish referendum, to a close run thing that lit the touchpaper of nationalism the next day; I have no confidence this government is in any way competent to handle it. Either the run up or the aftermath.

kabayiri

ruggedtoast wrote: »

It needn't be the end of the world if we left, but it we do go there is one thing that is very clear. We won't be leaving because of a rational and considered cost benefit analysis. We'll be going because of a fevered zeitgeist of misinformation, xenophobia, and borderline racism engendered by the ranting UKIP zealots and their lackeys in the Tory press.
...

The weak; ineffective; liberal; centre-ground parties in Europe are already doing a better PR job for the right/far right than any UKIP style promotional piece.

antrobus

Wake_up_call wrote: »

Nice attempt to twist words there.

It is quite clear that I am referring to joining the EFTA using the Swiss model, where the electorate will be able to vote on whether they want free movement of people or not.

Nothing is clear from your posts.:)

For one thing Switzerland's membership of EFTA is exactly the same as that of Iceland, Norway, and Liechenstein. It is Switzerland's relationship to the EEA that is different; it is not a formal member of the EEA, but rather has negotiated a series of bilateral treaties. There are apparently over 100 of them, so you would need to read through them all in order to establish exactly what the difference was between their position and that of the EFTA-EEA members.

As it is Switzerland is a member of Schengen and is committed by treaty to the freedom of movement enshrined in the EEA. It may well have had a referendum on the issue, and decided to introduce immigration quotas from 2017, but the EU has refused to renegotiate the agreement, and there will (and are) consequences if they proceed.

The UK already possesses exactly the same ability to restrict immigration if it so chooses; but there are always consequences if you unilaterally breach a treaty.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The sheer scale of the crisis is going to cause huge issues at local level. We are witnessing a movement of people not seen in Europe since WW2. Merkel is already fighting for her own credibility at home.

I still maintain that fundamentally migration is a local issue, and you need to work with the local communities. Ignore their concerns at your peril.

This is totally at odds with some German chancellor making grand proclamations on the behalf of all Europe.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

millions of pounds /dollars were not spent on contingency plans : the money was spent correcting software errors made in the 60,70,80,90s when no-one thought that the year 2000 would ever come.

Millions were spent on contingency plans actually.

Mrs Beckett also defended the amount of money spent on tackling the bug.
The government has spent about £430m, while private industry is believed to have spent in the region of £20bn in eradicating potential problems and putting contingency plans in place.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/590045.stm