If we vote for Brexit what happens

angrypirate

http://capx.co/how-good-could-britain-become-once-it-is-free-again/

kabayiri

I used to be pro-Europe but I am increasingly concerned the EU will fail in it's current form.

It seems unable to resolve the major challenges it faces. The refugee crisis has simply exposed divisions between states.

The Cameron negotiations mean nothing really.

Unless we are prepared to change the costing model on which the NHS and our state benefit system are based, demand for their services will grow whenever people feel they will gain (from across Europe).

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

Yes that's right. I suspect that most of the knee jerk-don't-like-the-EU people discussing here have still not read the proposed agreement: they should because many comments are just wrong and pure prejudice.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/david-camerons-draft-eu-deal-full-text/

There have been mutterings about Soverignty here, implying that this is degraded. That is not true: for example it states that:

"The competences conferred by the Member States on the EU can be modified, whether to increase or reduce them, only through a revision of the Treaties with the agreement of all Member States.

That means that any state can veto a loss of its sovereignty and for the UK, because of the law passed in the previous Government, that the people can veto it because in that situation there would be a Referendum.

Further, subsidiary (the principle that things should be done at Member State level rather than EU level), has been reinforced and it is stated that if, in the context of subsidiarity, 55% of Member States support an objection of a State to a legislative act proposed by the Commission then it will be stopped UNLESS it accommodates the concerns expressed.

The ability to claw back Competences, AKA Powers, is clearly agreed by the statement:
"Therefore, the references to an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe do not offer a basis for extending the scope of any provision of the Treaties or of EU secondary legislation. They should not be used either to support an extensive interpretation of the competences of the Union or of the powers of its institutions as set out in the Treaties.

These references do not alter the limits of EU competence governed by the principle of conferral, or the use of the EU competence governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. They do not require that further competences be conferred upon the European Union or that the European Union must exercise its existing competences, or that competences conferred on the EU could not be reduced and thereby returned to the Member States."

There are some here who complain about the language used. Well tough, it's the language used in International agreements for legal clarity. The matter is important and an effort to understand it is necessary and worthwhile.

Elsewhere in that document it talks about borders, reminding us that the UK does have border control (if we make a mess of that it's our fault) and also a very good appreciation of the potential problem of EU immigrants not being entitled to benefits if they have not contributed.

In fact most, if not all the things that people complain about regarding the EU are dealt with in that document.

What it does not cover is the underlying jingoistic clap-trap about not trusting foreigners and so on.

My own view? I think it is worded sufficiently well to get passed and if so it is a good agreement.

If it does not get passed, then that icould be a different story.

obviously the 'exit' people have knee jerk reaction without reading the details
and of course the pro EU people read the details and never have knee jerk reactions.
I believe this is a proven physiology difference between the in and out camp and proves the genetic superiority of the 'right' side.

However, having read some of the legalese it is clear that nothing of significance has changed

and of course there is no limit to EU migration but that wasn't asked for by our leader.

Filo25

What I will be interested in seeing over the course of the campaign is what the "Leave" campaign views as the future of the UK outside of the EU, and how realistic some of those plans are.

I certainly don't think that the UK is going to be given an easy ride in any negotiations with the EU if it does choose to leave.

At this stage in the campaign I would be voting to remain, on the basis that I think inward investment and financial services are clearly important to the UK economy and would likely both be adversely affected by Brexit, I also think it would make a Scottish departure from the UK considerably more likely in the near-medium term, and I don't share the same enthusiasm for the breakup of the UK as some seem to have.

Anyway I will enter the campaign with a reasonably open mind and will be interested to see how it goes.

CLAPTON

Filo25 wrote: »

What I will be interested in seeing over the course of the campaign is what the "Leave" campaign views as the future of the UK outside of the EU, and how realistic some of those plans are.

I certainly don't think that the UK is going to be given an easy ride in any negotiations with the EU if it does choose to leave.

At this stage in the campaign I would be voting to remain, on the basis that I think inward investment and financial services are clearly important to the UK economy and would likely both be adversely affected by Brexit, I also think it would make a Scottish departure from the UK considerably more likely in the near-medium term, and I don't share the same enthusiasm for the breakup of the UK as some seem to have.

Anyway I will enter the campaign with a reasonably open mind and will be interested to see how it goes.

as a matter of interest, why do you think inward investment is important (by which I assume you mean beneficial)

Inward investment means that we fund our huge current balance of payments by mortgaging our future. Maybe convenient for now but a hostage to fortune and no incentive to deal with the trade balance deficit.

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

obviously the 'exit' people have knee jerk reaction without reading the details
and of course the pro EU people read the details and never have knee jerk reactions.
I believe this is a proven physiology difference between the in and out camp and proves the genetic superiority of the 'right' side.

However, having read some of the legalese it is clear that nothing of significance has changed

and of course there is no limit to EU migration but that wasn't asked for by our leader.

Yes obviously people bring their own inclinations into their own interpretation of anything. No-one is immune to that, but some can rise above it.

The thing I beef about is people who can't be bothered to read the document, which is a rather short document (except for butterfly minds), and yet spout nonsense about what it does or does not contain based on preconceptions and not based on critique of what it actually states.

P.S. - I recommend a complete reading.

kabayiri

Filo25 wrote: »

...
I also think it would make a Scottish departure from the UK considerably more likely in the near-medium term, and I don't share the same enthusiasm for the breakup of the UK as some seem to have.
...

I see that as a matter for the Scots.

It's a complicated enough matter as it is, without having to worry about what other parts of the UK will do.

Staying in Europe offers no guarantees that Scotland will remain part of the UK. Ultimately, it will come down to them.

Filo25

CLAPTON wrote: »

as a matter of interest, why do you think inward investment is important (by which I assume you mean beneficial)

Inward investment means that we fund our huge current balance of payments by mortgaging our future. Maybe convenient for now but a hostage to fortune and no incentive to deal with the trade balance deficit.

In terms of job creation I think it is important, and often in terms of supporting what little manufacturing industry we have left.

I do agree with you with regards to the balance of payments issue, but I haven't seen any sign that the UK ever plans to seriously address that in my lifetime, I also don't share the optimism some have that leaving the EU will particularly help that situation, it certainly isn't likely to help any of our financial services income from overseas.

Yes we have a net deficit with the EU, but I don't think the UK is suddenly going to start becoming competitive in a lot of those industries just because we leave the EU.

I suppose devaluation might help in the short term (albeit with other costs attached), but I doubt it would be a long term answer for a country that has always struggled to have competitive industries in the tradeable sectors over the last few decades.

.string.

kabayiri wrote: »

I used to be pro-Europe but I am increasingly concerned the EU will fail in it's current form.

It seems unable to resolve the major challenges it faces. The refugee crisis has simply exposed divisions between states.

The Cameron negotiations mean nothing really.

Unless we are prepared to change the costing model on which the NHS and our state benefit system are based, demand for their services will grow whenever people feel they will gain (from across Europe).

I agree with you that there are stresses in the EU at present, I'd even go so far as to wonder if our exit would hasten something dramatic. However, positioned as we are now outside the Eurozone but in the EU we are in a strong position to form a new trade club should the EU actually collapse, a better position than we would be if we were partially responsible for a collapse.

However that's more in the nature of an insurance; it's not in our interest that the EU should collapse.

On your other two paras; obviously I don't agree with the last but the second is partially true in that there were divisions, not that we in the UK of all places should be surprised at other countries worrying about immigration. Other parts of Europe are not so much different from us as some make out.

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

Yes obviously people bring their own inclinations into their own interpretation of anything. No-one is immune to that, but some can rise above it.

The thing I beef about is people who can't be bothered to read the document, which is a rather short document (except for butterfly minds), and yet spout nonsense about what it does or does not contain based on preconceptions and not based on critique of what it actually states.

P.S. - I recommend a complete reading.

most people, rightly, will based their view on the interpretation that the newspapers provide.
reading legalese is difficult, if not impossible for the normal person. without guidance most can't assess the significance of phrases particularly in relation to an unread EU agreement.