If we vote for Brexit what happens

antrobus

zagubov wrote: »

I believe we looked at this before and, despite being 48% richer than us, they pay 10% less and as a proportion, 40% less as contributions than we do.

I have seen various estimates. Such as this one;

Norway pays £22 per capita less into the EU budget than the UK, equivalent to £1.68 billion for the British population as a whole
http://capx.co/is-norway-a-model-for-britains-relationship-with-the-eu/

One therefore could argue that the Norway Option might possibly be a cheaper route into the EEA. But since the UK would need to leave the EEA in order to 'retain control of its borders' and curb immigration, it does not seem a logical option to pursue.

antrobus

HornetSaver wrote: »

...The difference between the Scottish referendum and this one is that rEU could not afford to allow the UK to be seen as benefitting from the decision even after a leave vote - it would have an active interest in dissuading others from following suit....

That has to be, at the very least, a consideration.

CLAPTON

HornetSaver wrote: »

I've gone a bit off topic there. One final on-topic comment though. The irony of the EU referendum is that it would have the biggest effects on house prices and lower paid employment, yet the two biggest established blocks of Out voters are 45+ homeowners, and former voters for whites-only parties (who are typically lower paid).

As a corollary, the biggest winners will be the 'ordinary' people under 40s (whether or not they are black, brown, yellow, white and what ever religion or sexual orientation)who will be able to buy a family home in London and the other housing hotspots for the first time in 20 years.
It is unclear why stopping an unlimited stream of cheap well qualified foreign young people into the UK will adversely affect the lower paid.
One could consider it a win win for the young and the poor of what colour, race, religion or sexual orientation.
True the older and rich (of whatever race, colour, religion etc )will suffer a little: but some consider that's a price worth paying.

gfplux

"The difference between the Scottish referendum and this one is that rEU could not afford to allow the UK to be seen as benefitting from the decision even after a leave vote - it would have an active interest in dissuading others from following suit. Whereas despite Westminster and Holyrood having wildly differing views about the case for the union, that is a pre-independence position. If Scotland actually left, they would not have a subsequent interest in policies which might harm the other (the union would never be reinstated, besides which, high proportions of each country's trade is with the other)."

That is a very good point from Hornet.

After an out vote we would also be in the world of spin as those negotiators on the UK side would be telling (feeding) the UK voter what a great leaving deal has been worked out. The rest of The EU would be fed the opposite story.

Carl31

CLAPTON wrote: »

It is unclear why stopping an unlimited stream of cheap well qualified foreign young people into the UK will adversely affect the lower paid.

Surely it wouldn't be stopped? it could just be controlled, the highly qualified would still be coming in, its just less likely the not so skilled would be joining them

CLAPTON

Carl31 wrote: »

Surely it wouldn't be stopped? it could just be controlled, the highly qualified would still be coming in, its just less likely the not so skilled would be joining them

it could be effectively stopped (reduced to a few 10 of thousands) : whether it would be is a UK political decision

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

it could be effectively stopped (reduced to a few 10 of thousands) : whether it would be is a UK political decision

You mean like the Americans and Australians have managed :rotfl:

The only way to stop migration is to be so poor that people don't want to come.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

You mean like the Americans and Australians have managed :rotfl:

The only way to stop migration is to be so poor that people don't want to come.

australia openly encourages immigration (like UK ) and USA has an open border with Mexico and also legally allows significant immigration from elsewhere

the UK levels of immigration are partly the EU free movement of people and partly deliberate long standing de facto political policy

Crashy_Time

gfplux wrote: »

"The difference between the Scottish referendum and this one is that rEU could not afford to allow the UK to be seen as benefitting from the decision even after a leave vote - it would have an active interest in dissuading others from following suit. Whereas despite Westminster and Holyrood having wildly differing views about the case for the union, that is a pre-independence position. If Scotland actually left, they would not have a subsequent interest in policies which might harm the other (the union would never be reinstated, besides which, high proportions of each country's trade is with the other)."

That is a very good point from Hornet.

After an out vote we would also be in the world of spin as those negotiators on the UK side would be telling (fed) the UK voter what a great leaving deal has been worked out. The rest of The EU would be fed the opposite story.

Do you really think a debt soaked, migrant saturated political tinderbox like the EU is in any position to decide anyone`s future? They can`t even run their own affairs properly.

jacko74

I'm just waiting for the scare storys to start coming out predicting a house price crash if we leave.