If we vote for Brexit what happens

CLAPTON

mrginge wrote: »

Good to see Labour warning that the Tories will have a 'bonfire of rights' after a brexit. However, I'm not sure that a wafer-thin majority and a three year timescale is conducive to such actions though,

Personally, I'd rather see an opposition party that actually wanted to win future general elections rather than just chucking the towel in.
Thank god they have Neil kinnock (failed UK politician and EU commissioner) to tell us how great his bosses are and how much he enjoys being paid to do eff all every day.

The future for labour's really looking good now that they've abandoned their traditional, working-class supporters and alienated anyone over 50 in favour of currying favour with a load of ideological students and other 'young people' who, once the reality of actual life kicks in will abandon them in a heartbeat.

it does seems somewhat strange for the Leader of the Labour party to look to the EU to 'protect ' the people of the Uk, rather than seeing that as the role of the Labour party;
but I guess he is being realistic.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

the key is free movement of people........................
which many of the 'remain' people see as fearmongering

I was commenting on your post about Turkey and free trade. Yor reply is to another point!

BobQ

michaels wrote: »

So a country with a customs union with the EU but one that doesn't have to accept EU directives nor the free movement of people - oh and I beleive visa free travel and the EU pay then money each year. Surely a fairy tale, no country could aspire to such a relationship - could they?.....

Thanks Bob, I knew you would cross over to the 'dark side'

I am not the repentant sinner you take me for

Turkey does not get freedom of movement, they get a visa system.

They get free trade for industrial goods transport goods and manufactured goods, , but not agriculture and not services. They do have to accept EU directives relating to trade and decisions of the EU Court.

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

Is there any evidence that the EU has more trading relationships than small countries?
Everything the EU does, normally takes years and years to negotiation as all decisions have to take into account all the self interest of each of the 28 countries. The Uk can negotiate good deals that would never pass the EU28 and it could do so in a much shorter time.

Well my point was about the leverage that size (aka economic power) can bring to the table. But I suspect we are both reduced to speculation as to the extent of the effect of the number of EU Member States have on negotiation. However, with that caveat, I do have some experience in how multinational organisations work although not for the EU. It would be the EU Executive that does the actual negotiations; they are briefed on the "Druthers" of each country and resolve internal nuances before negotiation begins. In that type of process they build up, over time, a methodology which benefits succeeding negotiations. If some Druthers run into difficulties then they are dealt with along the way. If they are serious then a council meeting is the ultimate venue where's it's finally sorted but there are shades of authority before that stage.

I would not deny that a multi-membered entity has complexities, but one should not exaggerate on that point to the impression that all Member States are taking part directly in the negitiations.

BobQ

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I hate that the Remain side take it as read that the Scottish people would vote for independence after a vote to leave the EU.


With all of this in mind only nationalist fervour would contribute to a vote for independence. .........

All good arguments but nationalist fervour might be the clincher. If the UK lacks the common sense to vote remain out of some kind of nationalist fervour calling for exit, why should the same madness not infect Scotland?

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

Well my point was about the leverage that size (aka economic power) can bring to the table. But I suspect we are both reduced to speculation as to the extent of the effect of the number of EU Member States have on negotiation. However, with that caveat, I do have some experience in how multinational organisations work although not for the EU. It would be the EU Executive that does the actual negotiations; they are briefed on the "Druthers" of each country and resolve internal nuances before negotiation begins. In that type of process they build up, over time, a methodology which benefits succeeding negotiations. If some Druthers run into difficulties then they are dealt with along the way. If they are serious then a council meeting is the ultimate venue where's it's finally sorted but there are shades of authority before that stage.

I would not deny that a multi-membered entity has complexities, but one should not exaggerate on that point to the impression that all Member States are taking part directly in the negitiations.

Nothing there that says the outcome will be better for the UK or reached in a faster time than bilateral (maybe more limitied) trade negotiations.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

I was commenting on your post about Turkey and free trade. Yor reply is to another point!

I badly phrased by comment ; sorry
I intended the comment to be about free trade include free movment of people

LHW99

I would not deny that a multi-membered entity has complexities, but one should not exaggerate on that point to the impression that all Member States are taking part directly in the negitiations.

Whereas after Brexit the UK would be taking part directly in negotiations.

gfplux

Conrad wrote: »

Leave's biggest failing has been in not hammering home the positive economic case for leave, whereas Cameron last night for example hammered a few simple economic fear messages home over and over again.


I've sent Gove an email about the critical importance of him hammering home the economic case tonight on SKY, and he personally thanked me for it - not sure if that was just a polite 'f off I'm busy' though

• Regain control over our fishing grounds for a £5bn pa boost and over 100,000 new jobs (not just fisherman)

• Have the heft of a Commonwealth trading alliance behind us - think of the leverage

• We 100% will get a decent EU trade deal as it's not in their interest to increase their unemployment and make them and us perform worse (this is critically more important than the potential future risk of other nations wanting to leave - it's here n now

• Our deep global links, safe haven status, soft power status, Anglo-sphere status, deeply engaged military (for years) and more besides will ensure nations will be queuing up to get into alliances with us

C'mon people, we can do it, lets regain our trading vocation, lets regain our autonomy and confidence

Conrad, we are on opposite sides of the argument but I was glad to see you are trying to get the leave campaign to put a proper argument together.
However up to now the leave campaign only have a business plan of hot air.
No business plan can be taken seriously when it has so much waffle and no facts. The plan is a list of what might be achieved but with no prior knowledge, no preliminary talks, full of guesswork and puffed up confidence.
You perhaps and many others on this forum may have been in business and understand how a poor business plan gets shown the door.
No decision that puts our future and the future of our children on the line based on this plan can and should be taken seriously.

lisyloo

BobQ wrote: »

I am not the repentant sinner you take me for

Turkey does not get freedom of movement, they get a visa system.

They get free trade for industrial goods transport goods and manufactured goods, , but not agriculture and not services. They do have to accept EU directives relating to trade and decisions of the EU Court.

Genuine question - what does visa system mean?
Does that mean you have to pay £15 and get it at the airport (like we do in Egypt) or does that mean every individual gas to apply and every one is vetted individually.