If we vote for Brexit what happens

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

michaels wrote: »

I am glad you are celebrating the opportunity presented by leaving the inherently protectionist eu and like me looking forward to the lower food and electronics prices that will result from the removal of eu tariffs designed to protect a few french farmers and turkish tv manufacturers

Membership of the single market and the continued free movement of people is critical to our continued prosperity as a nation.

The benefits outweigh the costs.

That was not the case with steel tariffs which was why the UK government voted against them.

CLAPTON

mayonnaise wrote: »

Hmmm...let me think....

A democratically elected European Parliament, a European Commission constituted by individuals despatched by democratically elected governments and a European Council composed of democratically elected EU head of states.

As opposed to a house of commons chosen by an utterly undemocratic voting system (FPTP), a fully unelected house of lords, and presiding over all of this, a hereditary monarch.

It's a tough one.

given you think it so aweful,do you genuinely want to abolish the UK democratic system?

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Membership of the single market and the continued free movement of people is critical to our continued prosperity as a nation.

The benefits outweigh the costs.

That was not the case with steel tariffs which was why the UK government voted against them.

trade is mutually beneficial
it is a shame that the EU founding principles were to restrict trade to a chosen few (since somewhat expanded)

unlimited free movement of people is unwelcome and adds huge burdens on the people of the UK and adds nothing to our nation (even if it make immigrants better off).

It certainly helps older richer people at the expense of the younger poorer people but I guess you are older and already a property owner
the general standard of living of younger people in the SE is declining direcly as a result of the presssure of population.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

I think the in campaign should stick to the economy. When I hear people championing interventions because they don't think the uk democratic process would deliver the same result I feel extremely nervous - at that point we really are talking the politics of dictatorship.

I'm not sure that holding up the democratic process in the UK as a shining example is a great idea. The primary chamber is completely unrepresentative of the number of votes cast (UKIP with 13% of the vote and 0.15% of the seats anyone), the second chamber is very limited powers to return legislation and anyway is made up of placemen and representatives of the Established Church. And the Head of State is unelected and has clung to power for over 60 years.

Interesting interview with the head (?) of the WTO today. He's not sure that relying on the WTO rules to see free trade is going to see great results for the UK on Brexit. It's another example of the massive costs the UK will face if she votes Leave in the short term, costs that are so great I can't really ever see them being recouped.

mwpt

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Also consider that if you were to speak to this local MP of the UK parliament about your concerns and you are met with "...there is nothing that can be done, it is an EU directive".

Why would an MP tell me there is nothing that can be done when clearly the UK has a vote on EU directives? In the same sense, my local MP could tell me, there is nothing that can be done, it is a UK law not a constituency law. In practice, there may be nothing that can be done about either, but in theory both are changeable and we have a say in both.

mwpt

Generali wrote: »

How keen do you reckon the colonies are to have the oppressors back?

The natives will fall in line when the time comes Generali. We must get back to our British roots where we are free to make our own laws and ravage foreign lands for the good of our own people.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

I'm not sure that holding up the democratic process in the UK as a shining example is a great idea. The primary chamber is completely unrepresentative of the number of votes cast (UKIP with 13% of the vote and 0.15% of the seats anyone), the second chamber is very limited powers to return legislation and anyway is made up of placemen and representatives of the Established Church. And the Head of State is unelected and has clung to power for over 60 years.

Interesting interview with the head (?) of the WTO today. He's not sure that relying on the WTO rules to see free trade is going to see great results for the UK on Brexit. It's another example of the massive costs the UK will face if she votes Leave in the short term, costs that are so great I can't really ever see them being recouped.

The Director-General of the World Trade Organization is responsible for supervising the administrative functions of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Because World Trade Organizations' decisions are made by member states (through either a Ministerial Conference or through the General Council), the Director-General has little power over matters of policy - the role is primarily advisory and managerial. The Director-General supervises the WTO secretariat of about 700 staff and is appointed by WTO members for a term of four years.[1]

No idea what his qualifications are on the UK economy

mwpt

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You can be as flippant as you want about it. It won't change the fact that we're unable to take unilateral decisions in key areas of government policy. And the voice of the people matters very little in this matter, the tampon tax has been quite well campaigned for and change is not on the horizon and the same can be said about steel. It's only a matter of time before another crisis or issue comes to the fore where we're unable to affect change in our own country.

You might think it's a good idea to let the steel industry in this country fail, I do not. It is fundamental to our defense as a nation and is massively important to many thousands of people across the UK and not just in Port Talbot.

Ha ha ha. I knew sooner or later your rational front would crack.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

No idea what his qualifications are on the UK economy

He has a pretty strong understanding of the nuts and bolts of negotiating trade deals which is what he was actually commenting on rather than what you wish he was commenting on.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

I'm not sure that holding up the democratic process in the UK as a shining example is a great idea. The primary chamber is completely unrepresentative of the number of votes cast (UKIP with 13% of the vote and 0.15% of the seats anyone), the second chamber is very limited powers to return legislation and anyway is made up of placemen and representatives of the Established Church. And the Head of State is unelected and has clung to power for over 60 years.

.

whilst personally not a monarchist, it appears that the majority of people in the UK support the Queen as head of state:
presumably that has no weight in a democracy and we should ask the EU for guidence on the matter?

people had a vote (refeerendum) on changing the FPTP system and overwhealmingly rejected the specific proposal.

I understand that Aus has changed its governence over the years : one wonders how they did that without asking the EU to decide for them.