If we vote for Brexit what happens

Kohoutek

CLAPTON wrote: »

you would assume wrongly

Well, I assumed you had a consistent approach on taking back sovereignty.

Thrugelmir

Tromking wrote: »

I thought Gove smashed it on QT earlier. I don't get why some Bremainers are having a pop at Gove for being a Tory, they seem to see this referendum as an extension of a Labour/Tory battle in a normal election.
When the two biggest advocates for remain are the two most hated Tories in Cameron and Osborne, it just seems ridiculous to play the party political card. Perhaps Vote Leaves more cohesive and collegiate campaign is more to the publics liking and is now being reflected in the polls.

Little seen of Theresa May (for example) ? Whatever the outcome of the referendum wind of change is in the air.

CLAPTON

Kohoutek wrote: »

Well, I assumed you had a consistent approach on taking back sovereignty.

I am a pragmatic, sensible, intelligent person and therefore do not subscribe to reductio ad absurdum.

I see no strong connection between a collective defence pack and the agreement to allow the group of nations to determine our laws, our taxes, our priorities, our culture etc,
and neither do you

Kohoutek

CLAPTON wrote: »

I am a pragmatic, sensible, intelligent person and therefore do not subscribe to reductio ad absurdum.

I see no strong connection between a collective defence pack and the agreement to allow the group of nations to determine our laws, our taxes, our priorities, our culture etc,
and neither do you

Okay, I will break it down for you:

If Russia attacks Latvia (a former member of the Soviet Union with a large Russian speaking population - remind you of another country Russia was recently at war with?), we are at war with Russia as a result of being a member of NATO.

Being at war with Russia, a country with an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons, could potentially have quite a large effect on quality of life in Britain. I would suggest to you that this could be worse than the Leave Campaign's claims about all the terrible things the EU does to the UK.

CLAPTON

Kohoutek wrote: »

Okay, I will break it down for you:

If Russia attacks Latvia (a former member of the Soviet Union with a large Russian speaking population - remind you of another country Russia was recently at war with?), we are at war with Russia as a result of being a member of NATO.

Being at war with Russia, a country with an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons, could potentially have quite a large effect on quality of life in Britain. I would suggest to you that this could be worse than the Leave Campaign's claims about all the terrible things the EU does to the UK.

why is that relevant?

I see benefit for the people of the UK in being in a mutual defense pact

I see no benefit in 27 nations deciding our VAT rates or how many migrants should be allowed into this country or whether we can expel rapists or murderers or how many hours one can work or our fisheries policies etc etc.

you may see a logical connection or indeed be contend with that arrangment but I am not.

buglawton

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/world-spectator-backs-brexit/

The Spectator has joined the light side.

Joined? Looks like it was already there in 1975.

Kohoutek

CLAPTON wrote: »

why is that relevant?

I see benefit for the people of the UK in being in a mutual defense pact

I see no benefit in 27 nations deciding our VAT rates or how many migrants should be allowed into this country or whether we can expel rapists or murderers or how many hours one can work or our fisheries policies etc etc.

you may see a logical connection or indeed be contend with that arrangment but I am not.

It's relevant because being a member of NATO and the EU: (i) both involve giving away sovereignty; (ii) both have benefits; and (iii) both have disbenefits.

I assume you are deliberately being obtuse if you cannot see that.

CLAPTON

Kohoutek wrote: »

It's relevant because being a member of NATO and the EU: (i) both involve giving away sovereignty; (ii) both have benefits; and (iii) both have disbenefits.

I assume you are deliberately being obtuse if you cannot see that.

The two situations have different benefits and costs just like lots of things in life : I accept the balance of benefits/ cost of liot of lots of things in life but equally I reject the balance of the benefits/ costs of lots of other things

I accept the benefits/costs of nato
and I reject the benefits/ costs of the EU

why is that hard for you to understand?

Kohoutek

CLAPTON wrote: »

The two situations have different benefits and costs just like lots of things in life : I accept the balance of benefits/ cost of liot of lots of things in life but equally I reject the balance of the benefits/ costs of lots of other things

I accept the benefits/costs of nato
and I reject the benefits/ costs of the EU

why is that hard for you to understand?

I understand now you have conceded that they both have costs and benefits.

CLAPTON

Kohoutek wrote: »

I understand now you have conceded that they both have costs and benefits.

It is blindingly obvious that they both have benefits and costs : why did you ever doubt that?