If we vote for Brexit what happens

Shakethedisease

Moby wrote: »

Where in my post exactly did I mention the Labour Party? Take your rambling incoherent posts elsewhere!

Cameron is arguably the worst PM in living memory he got lucky over playing the Politics of Fear with the Scottish referendum and Europe could be his death knell....hopefully! That clown Boris Johnson is still hesitating Yes or No.....calculating his choice not on principle but which option is likely to give him an edge............ putting his own self interests before those of the general public !! Grayling coudn't wait to get in front of the cameras could he. What a bunch of chancers they are. We can now look forward to four months of this spectacle. Also I also don't see how UK can think itself entitled to claim all these opt-outs and special clauses - and still be a full member of the EU. What entitles UK to special treatment over all the other members. When Cameron calls us special.....exactly what does he mean? His arrogance will win us no friends.

It'll come down to one side arguing economics/jobs etc ( Remain ) and the other about immigration and migration levels/control of borders ( Leave ). It's already started. Cameron's deal won't really matter in that sense. He's climbed down from caps on migrant levels themselves, to caps on migrants benefits over several years.

And am not quite sure why there's all this trumpeting about the UK not joining the Euro. I don't think that was ever an issue in the first place. He's not got much of the written press onside either. Leave have nowhere near as much to make up in the polls as Yes did in Scotland.

But it'll be immigration that becomes a huge focus in the coming months from the Leave camp and from most of the press imo, not Cameron's deal.

Nick_C

I watched Cameron's press conference on Sky last night (the BBC having decided to stop broadcasting it after 10 minutes, and instead ask Laura Kuennsberg to speculate on what she thought DC was going to say!!)

I was struck by the irrelevance and downright lies of what he was saying.

A guarantee that we will never join the Euro? There was no threat that we should ever have to, unless we make the decision ourselves.

A guarantee that we will maintain our own borders? Again, no threat that we would be forced to enter Schengen against our will.

And then the threats. If we leave the EU, we will have to try to negotiate trade agreements with 27 different countries. Absolute rubbish. We will have to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU. Member states don't have the power or freedom to negotiate their own trade agreements.

The man is desperate to try to convince people that he has secured a good deal with bluster, sleight of hand, and obfuscation. You can't believe a word he says.

The chances of a fair, unbiased, factual debate are zero.

The comments by the President of the European Parliament were telling. This agreement will only come into force if Britain votes to stay in, and if the necessary changes are agreed by the European Parliament. who won't consider any of the necessary changes until after the referendum.

Folks, we are being stitched up.

lvader

Nick_C wrote: »

Member states don't have the power or freedom to negotiate their own trade agreements.

What a load of tosh, of cause they can. The UK does it all the time.

antrobus

lvader wrote: »

What a load of tosh, of cause they can. The UK does it all the time.

Sadly the tosh is coming from you.

Trade policy is an exclusive power of the EU. This means that the EU, and not individual member states, negotiates international trade agreements.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/june/tradoc_149616.pdf

Member states can conclude all manner of 'trade deals' with whoever they please in order to encourage business, but that's different from a trade agreement.

lvader

We can negotiate about trade barriers directly with the country concerned, or we can deal with them through the EU. We may do both. See the case study on Helping scotch whisky sales in Colombia by overcoming a trade barrier.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-free-trade/2010-to-2015-government-policy-free-trade

.string.

I thanked both posts on trade for linking documents. It's good to see the source of information , and opinions come to that.

The two documents appear in conflict, but maybe not. I interpret them as meaning that the EU is responsible for EU Trade agreements, while individual countries have the options of either having their own trade deal, or using the EU umbrella. The latter happened with the UK sponsored trade deal with the US which is in process I believe.

I've not yet confirmation of that; has anyone else?

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It'll come down to one side arguing economics/jobs etc ( Remain ) and the other about immigration and migration levels/control of borders ( Leave ). It's already started. Cameron's deal won't really matter in that sense. He's climbed down from caps on migrant levels themselves, to caps on migrants benefits over several years.

And am not quite sure why there's all this trumpeting about the UK not joining the Euro. I don't think that was ever an issue in the first place. He's not got much of the written press onside either. Leave have nowhere near as much to make up in the polls as Yes did in Scotland.

But it'll be immigration that becomes a huge focus in the coming months from the Leave camp and from most of the press imo, not Cameron's deal.

Personally I find the migrant arguments distasteful and muddled, what with the conflation of euro-migration and non-euro-migration. But sticking to the euro-migration issue it appears that the large majority come to get jobs, not benefits as such and the raising of the minimum/living wage coincident with the phasing out of on-air benefits will reduce those attracted to the UK for the benefits. That's not the case for child benefits and I could swallow an arrangement where it is linked to the country where the children live. But it's a bit of a fuss about very little.

It'd be happy if the immigration issue was not so prominent

I don't think Cameron was trumpeting about the euro exactly, he was making the point that the UK has a cosy situation within the EU which it would lose if it left.

The new settlement has been beneficial in that it puts beyond reasonable doubt (apart from serial doubters of course) that the UK is not heading inexorably into a Federal Europe where national identities are lost. That was never really a problem in fact although there were signs of a creeping sort of erosion of national competences by the over-enthusiasm of some elements of the EU. That has now been fettered and we will have to see if moderation now prevails.

michaels

lvader wrote: »

What a load of tosh, of cause they can. The UK does it all the time.

Can't see how that would work. Suppose UK negotiates no tariff on agricultural imports from the US (to save consumers the huge daily cost of EU farm policy) then we are in a trade zone with the rest of Europe so once the US food is in the UK it can then be sold to the rest of the EU. Hence any country could usurp EU trade policy.

lvader

There are rules being part of the EU but if the UK was to exit the EU it still has trade agreements with other countries that would continue to apply.

In the case of the UK leaving the EU then trade negotiations with the EU would be at the EU level but still needs to be ratified by the EU council. The essence of this is that the UK would have to get agreement from the head of every member state to get the trade agreement (hence negotiation with each country still required). I imagine that in the absence of an agreement they can fall back on Commonwealth - EU trade agreements.

.string.

michaels wrote: »

Can't see how that would work. Suppose UK negotiates no tariff on agricultural imports from the US (to save consumers the huge daily cost of EU farm policy) then we are in a trade zone with the rest of Europe so once the US food is in the UK it can then be sold to the rest of the EU. Hence any country could usurp EU trade policy.

That does stir a memory about the changing of agreements with Commonwealth countries when we first joined. That was modified in 1975 after a Re-negotiation. We seem to be serial Re-negotiation!

This is worth a glance.

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm

Things got changed again in Maastricht of course and later in Lisbon where, if memory has not deserted me things really got screwed up on the "Ever Closer Union" stuff. Haine was responsible for scrutinizing the Treaty Changes. I seem to remember that the "Ever Closer Union" phrase slinked through someone at that treaty change. If we had had a vote at that time I would have voted against ratification of the treaty until that at least was put right. But I never got the chance. Labour wouldn't hear of it and by the time the Conservatives got into power the game was over and it was all signed up. The Conservatives got some stick at not having a Referendum but it was actually not their fault.