If we vote for Brexit what happens

Sapphire

BobQ wrote: »

There is some truth in this, but it all assumes we are part of a politically integrated EU. We are NOT. Our 28 Governments are sovereign, some are more content to surrender sovereignty than others but we can choose. The EU has always been a compromise in which access to a single market, freedom of movement and harmonisation of laws that we are willing to harmonize are all positives. There are negatives to balance against these, immigration to attractive areas, harmonisation you do not want, and differences of opinions (tribes if you like). This debate is really about these pros and cons and the balance between them.

To me your arguments are valid but you might as well say why belong to NATO, the UN, the WTO. For NATO, is the benefits of other nations coming to your aid if you are attacked really worth the hassel of having to assign some forces to NATO and be willing to support other members? NATO is not democratic in your terms and has a bureaucracy associated with it like the EU.

I have no problem at all with a commercial alliance of some kind, which is what I thought was all the EU was about until very recently.

However, the idea of a Europe run politically by Germany, with no democratic accountability to the populations of the different countries in Europe, is a complete no-no to me. The EU is talking about amalgamating armies of the countries in Europe and so on. It is insistent about such issues and I doubt whether there will be a choice as to whether we 'conform' or not.

We are part of NATO, which should take care of defence issues, etc. NATO only takes care of defence issues – it does not seek to influence our lives in the way advocated by the EU bureaucrats. There is no need for yet another layer of defence, run by Germany (which would probably aggravate Russia to boot). I also disagree with having completely open borders in Europe, given the security risks, as well as the risk of undesirables travelling all over Europe. Yes, immigration is fine, but it should be immigration of people that will actually benefit our country, not those who just want take, or lie about in underpasses in London, etc. (was shocked to see so much of this the other day).

In a hurry, so hope this is coherent…

Sapphire

danothy wrote: »

It's overflowing with democracy, and anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly drunk off their own farts.

The same sentiment can be applied to the orders issued by Merkel and Juncker to Europe's sovereign nations. I never voted for any of this, and neither did anyone I know. I'd never vote for anyone like Merkel or Juncker, for a start. So as far as I'm concerned the EU is undemocratic and increasingly autocratic.:T

danothy

Sapphire wrote: »

the orders issued by Merkel and Juncker to Europe's sovereign nations.

I would be very interested in seeing a credible account of an actual and legitimate order issued by Merkel or Juncker to, say, the UK, that wasn't actually something that the EU agreed as a collective.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't understand what you are saying.

The EU can sell cars to Australia now : what point are you making?
We in the UK can chose to have zero tariffs on any product we like once we leave the EU, so the tariff on EU cars is up to us.

I'm glad don't think that the EU will impose tariffs on UK products and hence damage the people of the EU27 but I am somewhat surprised, after other stuff you have posted.

I could have explained this better!

At present we have no tariffs either way with the EU. I concur that we would most likely agree that cars do not carry tariffs, at least in the short term but not because of the balance of trade. The EU car market is so intertwined and spread across nations including the UK (research/ development/production/component sources), in the short term. However, longer term we may see less mutual reliance as firms that are only partly based in the UK (eg Ford) move their R&D and diesel engine production to the EU. At present we also source a significant proportion of car components from the EU (20-50% depending on model).

My point about Australia and NZ is that if trading with the EU were to involve WTO level tariffs it would be just as easy for us and the EU to export cars there.

But I would be surprised if the EU do not impose tariffs on many other products. Unless of course we negotiate a Norway like deal in the EEA.

buglawton

CLAPTON wrote: »

London and the SE presents about 32% of the population of England. Although I would prefer that the economic activity were more widely spread geographically I see no realistic prospect of that happening.

However, the housing market in the SE, as elsewhere is determined by supply and demand and the people of the UK would be better off with a smaller population.

Would the people outside of the overheated S.E. realty be better served? Jury's on that one as far as I'm concerned.

BobQ

Sapphire wrote: »

.

However, the idea of a Europe run politically by Germany, with no democratic accountability to the populations of the different countries in Europe, is a complete no-no to me. The EU is talking about amalgamating armies of the countries in Europe and so on. It is insistent about such issues and I doubt whether there will be a choice as to whether we 'conform' or not.

We are part of NATO, which should take care of defence issues, etc. NATO only takes care of defence issues – it does not seek to influence our lives in the way advocated by the EU bureaucrats. There is no need for yet another layer of defence, run by Germany (which would probably aggravate Russia to boot). I also disagree with having completely open borders in Europe, given the security risks, as well as the risk of undesirables travelling all over Europe. Yes, immigration is fine, but it should be immigration of people that will actually benefit our country, not those who just want take, or lie about in underpasses in London, etc. (was shocked to see so much of this the other day).

In a hurry, so hope this is coherent…

I agree that we should not have a European Army. Junkers argument is that it would show Russia we mean business. Its daft ideas like this that are a reason for staying in the EU to vote against them. As I recall it would take a new treaty to make this happen as it is a matter that is for nations to address. The idea is merely the view of a few people and many national governments are opposed. Frankly I am surprised that you listen to these stupid ideas. They really have nothing to do with the Referendum. They sit in the bendy banana category as far as I am concerned.

On reason why an EU Army might happen "one day" is most nations are having difficulty maintaining defence spending at 2%, some have given up. RUSI predicts that whoever wins the next election we will have more defence cuts and lose 30000 more military personnel. If they are right, one day the idea may not be so ridiculous, although we will be better off pooling resources through NATO as to a degree we do now.

I agree about security at borders. I think Schengen will look very different in 5 years time.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

I could have explained this better!

At present we have no tariffs either way with the EU. I concur that we would most likely agree that cars do not carry tariffs, at least in the short term but not because of the balance of trade. The EU car market is so intertwined and spread across nations including the UK (research/ development/production/component sources), in the short term. However, longer term we may see less mutual reliance as firms that are only partly based in the UK (eg Ford) move their R&D and diesel engine production to the EU. At present we also source a significant proportion of car components from the EU (20-50% depending on model).

My point about Australia and NZ is that if trading with the EU were to involve WTO level tariffs it would be just as easy for us and the EU to export cars there.

But I would be surprised if the EU do not impose tariffs on many other products. Unless of course we negotiate a Norway like deal in the EEA.

do you accept that if we both levied tariffs on each other the EU (and us) would both be worse off with higher unemployment.

Rinoa

danothy wrote: »

The nominated (and voted for twice) candidate put forward is typically drawn from the pool of EU national politicians, a much larger list than our mere 650 possibilities. Although that is not even a requirement apparently, so really the choice is completely open.

The procedure for appointment is quite simple, the people I and other people vote for come up with a candidate taking into account the parliamentary vote (democracy), vote on it (democracy), and nominate a candidate based on that vote (democracy). The nomination is then voted on again (democracy) by more people I and other people vote for (democracy) to endorse or reject the nomination (democracy). It's overflowing with democracy, and anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly drunk off their own farts.

I guess some people want more direct involvement in choosing who governs them, others are happy to go with the flow like flocks of sheep.

HornetSaver

Generali wrote: »

Clearly it would be terrible to live in a country, like North Korea, where the Head of State was in place merely because she was the daughter of the previous Head of State. That would not be democratic in the least.

That would be OK though, because we don't have enough women in politics.

cells

Rinoa wrote: »

I guess some people want more direct involvement in choosing who governs them, others are happy to go with the flow like flocks of sheep.

that sounds like a sheep choosing his shepherd putting its nose up at sheep in a bigger flock choosing their shepherd

If you were encouraging people to join political parties and try to influence the direction of movement maybe you can jibe with the sheep but right now your right amongst them all. Baaaaa...