If we vote for Brexit what happens

Conrad

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I don't think that remainers are evil, I hate that it's become so polarised. I wish we could have a proper debate from our political leaders instead of all this scare story rubbish from both sides.

Discuss the issue,

No offence Tricky but what you say here I've heard many times, but it's a little bit unrealistic to expect.


More or less every point is contested, and as such no one is going to be able to deliver a 'facts based debate' because each side will not agree with the others facts.

Bremain imply Brits will have to leave Spain as 'Leave cant guarantee anything' but this would completely ruin the Spanish economy, so it is a fact to say of course Spain and the UK will act in an adult manner and do nothing to cause pointless hardship either side. 1% of all Norwegians live in Spain, no EU membership needed. So who has the facts here?


Another example if Brexit says China and others trade quite happily with the EU without having 'a say on the rules', this is a fact, but Cleggy types will just filter this out and so debate is rendered almost pointless.


Or if we say Norway and Switzerland are in top 5 happiest and most prosperous nations, this is a fact, but instead of recognising this the Bremains will say 'ah but they suffer regulation by fax' and so it goes.


In the end surely it comes down to you either having trust in your nation to stand tall and make her way in the world, or you fear change and just don't want to chance it.

Conrad

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I've just come across something rather interesting on this point about existing deals and future deals.

"Speaking at the G7 summit in Japan on Monday, Mr Osborne said: “If we left the EU, we would have a two-year period to negotiate our exit with 27 other countries.

“We would then have to negotiate new arrangements with them and at the same time conclude over 50 trade deals with countries that aren’t even in Europe. That would be extremely difficult to do.”

This was echoed by a Remain spokesman, who said: “The legal position is clear. We’d have to start from scratch, which would take years if not decades, meaning ongoing uncertainty for trade, investment, jobs and livelihoods.”

But this was rejected by the report’s author Martin Howe QC, one of Britain’s leading EU experts, who yesterday confirmed that, far from having to abandon the deals, “Britain would have existing trade deals in place” from the first day after Brexit.

The report says: “Both the EU and the member states are parties to the free trade agreement with the Republic of Korea, concluded in 2011.

“There would be no difficulty in the UK continuing to comply with the obligations of this FTA after Brexit and Korea on a reciprocal basis would have no difficulty continuing to apply these substantive provisions both to the UK and the EU. This step would not require any renegotiation.”

Mr Howe added that there was already a legal precedent for this.

He said: “It was applied when Czechoslovakia became the Czech Republic and Slovakia. That’s a much more extreme example than Brexit. Those people who are saying it is not true are buying into their own mythology without checking legal facts.”

Mr Littlewood added: “What this document asserts is that everything we could need would still be in place on June 24. It is not a reboot on your computer with all the software missing. All the apps will be there.

"This is very important and it needs to be perfectly communicated to the wider electorate.

"The nature of the referendum campaign is in my view a decider by the Remain campaign that there will be total uncertainty, and that we will be leaping into a void if we vote to leave.

“This report clearly and cogently establishes that the opposite is the case. Thanks to our international arrangement with groups other than the EU we would have everything we could wish for in the event of Brexit, and could negotiate from there.

“This could have a decisive impact on how people who are understandably nervous and confused will finally cast their vote on June 23.”"

The very author of the report used by Osborne said he mis-represented the report and actually the opposite is true and that the UK would continue to benefit from free trade arrangements around the world. I'm regretting voting Conservative, even though they gave us the chance to make the choice on the EU.

Edit: Article here

Well done, weapons grade evidence, found.

michaels

I thought the response to this morning's proposal of a points based immigration system was particuarly poor 'Well that is the Australian system and they let in twice as many per capita as we do so immigration would double'. If that is really the Remain response to such a proposal then they are admitting they have lost the arguement. A bit like leave dismissing every ecnomic report by 'look how innacurate economic forecasts are'.

Can't our politicians try a little bit harder?

We also had 'Brexit=uncertainty' putting forward a definite proposal for what might happen after the vote. Have the 'remain=certainty' camp let us know what level of net immigration they expect to see every year following a remain vote?

Edit: If Italy and Spain suffer economic meltdown under the Euro is there anything to prevent us seeing 1m+ migrants from Europe per year?

Edit2: Don't forget that free movement of Europeans to the UK also includes 'new europeans' - IE any migrants allowed in by any other country. All those migrants at Calais would be better off just registering as immigrants in Germany who take whoever arrives (with schengen they can just hop on a bus to get there) and then once they are EU citizens head on over to the UK with impunity. Makes any attempt to police our borders rather redundant.

Conrad

michaels wrote: »

I thought the response to this morning's proposal of a points based immigration system was particuarly poor 'Well that is the Australian system and they let in twice as many per capita as we do so immigration would double'.

I know, and yet they have the temerity to say they deal in facts and figures!


Lets make this real easy; A points based orderly border control, would, if we so wish allow us to set quotas and limits. The fact the Aussies want lots of people to fill lots of space is hardly a surprise.


A vote for Brexit would be just the jolt our beloved leaders need to start with a blank sheet of paper with regards border control.


The fact soft Cameron lets in loads of non EU citizens is because he's a lame duck past sell by date unresponsive 'leader'.

Filo25

michaels wrote: »

I thought the response to this morning's proposal of a points based immigration system was particuarly poor 'Well that is the Australian system and they let in twice as many per capita as we do so immigration would double'. If that is really the Remain response to such a proposal then they are admitting they have lost the arguement. A bit like leave dismissing every ecnomic report by 'look how innacurate economic forecasts are'.

Can't our politicians try a little bit harder?

We also had 'Brexit=uncertainty' putting forward a definite proposal for what might happen after the vote. Have the 'remain=certainty' camp let us know what level of net immigration they expect to see every year following a remain vote?

Edit: If Italy and Spain suffer economic meltdown under the Euro is there anything to prevent us seeing 1m+ migrants from Europe per year?

No, apparently that would be asking far too much of them.

To be slightly fair it seems that any sort of rational argument admitting that there are shades of grey in the argument (possibly even more than 50 of them ) is somehow greeted as an admission of weakness and evidence that the other side somehow "won", its schoolboy stuff all round.

With respect to your last point, I think ultimately what would restrict immigration in that scenario would be our inability to provide employment for that kind of number of people, even with the economic growth the additional workforce would generate itself.

Like most arguments there are weaknesses on both sides of the debate and it does a disservice to the electorate when people can't seriously talk about that.

Filo25

Michaels with respect to your Edit2 comment, I do think (purely my opinion) that the risk of significant numbers of refugees doing this is overstated.

I'm not denying for a moment that it is certainly feasible and I understand the concern about it, but my view would be if you end up living in Germany for a while, learning the language and working in one of the more successful EU economies, why would you want to then up and leave as soon as your EU passport arrives and move to the UK?

I'm sure some people might do it, but I'm not sure I would expect massive numbers to do so.

BobQ

Filo25 wrote: »

Not sure what you arguing about here, I clearly said EEA access would be requested by the EU for full access to the single market, and that otherwise we would need to come to a negotiated solution if we could find one that was mutually agreeable.

For economic reasons we would clearly want full access if we could get it, its simple to negotiate so no costly timely delay with negotiating a new deal (with no guarantee of an agreement at the end of it), it would also free up access for areas like financial services where our economy is strong, which as an example the Canadian deal does not fully cover.

If the UK votes for Brexit, it would clearly be in the interests of both parties to come to a deal, but that doesn't always mean one can be done quickly, we have no idea how open to negotiation and compromise either party would be.

We also have to remember that this would require the endorsement of all 27 nations. It only takes one to be vindictive. All this talk about it not being in Germany's interest is probably true but what if say Belgium or France vetos the idea?

The thing I took from the DT article was that the EU may wish to make an example of the UK to stop others leaving.

TrickyTree83

BobQ wrote: »

We also have to remember that this would require the endorsement of all 27 nations. It only takes one to be vindictive. All this talk about it not being in Germany's interest is probably true but what if say Belgium or France vetos the idea?

The thing I took from the DT article was that the EU may wish to make an example of the UK to stop others leaving.

They would risk the economies of Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece for a dig at the UK?

I think they are threatening to do so to try and convince us to vote Remain. If they carried through on the threat to "rap us on the knuckles" then the shock will be bad for the UK but also bad for the EU. You have to consider the bond prices of all these struggling Euro economies will rise above what they can deal with and they're end up with another crisis, like Greece, probably another in Greece, it'll be a disaster for them as much as us.

There's a mutual interest to keep things stable.

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

The thing I took from the DT article was that the EU may wish to make an example of the UK to stop others leaving.

And you are happy to remain linked to a political organisation that ignores the democratic wishes of its members?

gfplux

BobQ wrote: »

I chose the words carefully. There is no EU law that requires "translation services". But EU does include phrases that implicitly suggest it via rights of equal access to services, not to be discriminated against, the right to privacy etc.

It would be perfectly reasonable to say that anyone living in the UK must be able to speak English. But you could argue that if your English is poor not being able to communicate with a GP or having to discuss sensitive medical matters using "a friend" might infringe the right to privacy.

I am not arguing this but other countries do provide such facilities (US for example). I do not suggest this was the intention of the EU or the UN in framing human rights, but the fact that these services are provided is probably attributable to human rights.

Thanks BobQ for the clarification. However can we except that this is a service thought up and paid for by British Politiciens.
Living where I do I understand (but do not know for a fact) that this "service" is not a regular expense born by other EU states except perhaps in Immigration centres dealing with recently arrived migrants.