If we vote for Brexit what happens

Generali

SussexJohn wrote: »

I am old enough to know life outside of the Common Market and the European Union - I can say we were better off in those days, we were happier and young people could afford to buy a house. When I started a family, my wife stayed at home to look after the children - not only did my wage support them but it help me buy a house. It was a struggle but we were happy. Now both couples have to go to work and they are still in debt. I am certainly voting out and I am sure anyone my age will be as we knew better times.

Why didn't they buy a house then? Home ownership level was lower than now IIRC.

BobQ

globalds wrote: »

Regulations are not laws ,

I know. Plasmarb said "their laws"

If our products don't comply with their regulations they might chose not to trade with us ..

Plasmarb said he wanted to trade with them but not have their laws. Not clear to me how you can do that.

But We will still have our Laws and Lawmakers.

And your point is what?

Ben8282

I believe there is considerable misinformation in the minds of the public on the subject of EU membership and Immigration.
Here are some points for consideration.


1. EU/EEA NATIONALS
If we leave the EU will we also leave the EEA or remain a member of the EEA along with non-EU countries Norway and Iceland?
The EEA has signed up to the 'free-movement' principals. Unless we leave the EEA also, EU
nationals will still be able to enter the UK 'freely'.
This is a question which needs to be answered.


2. NON EU/EEA NATIONALS
How will leaving the EU change our ability to control immigration by non-EU nationals? We are not part of Shengen. The UK issues it's own visas. Non-EU/EEA nationals are subject to normal immigration controls when entering the UK from an EU-country. The influx of such persons to the UK was due to the changes made by the Blair government to work permit procedures/immigration control procedures in 1997, not the EU.


There are also some other points to be thought about.
What sort of level of immigration control would we wish to place on citizens of our neighbouring countries?
If all EU nationals arriving in the UK were to be required to complete a landing card, be examined by an immigration officer as to the purpose of their visit etc and given the appropriate leave to enter, the queues would be never-ending and the cost would be massive.
Would it actually be possible to discriminate between citizens of different EU countries? If say we decided that Romanians were to require visas, could we actually do that or would such a requirement have to be imposed for ALL EU nationals?
What would happen to EU nationals living in the UK? I have a friend. She is French. She has lived and worked in UK since 1978 but has never obtained (or wanted) UK citizenship. What would happen to her?
And how would the EU countries treat us? What comes to mind is that we would be treated the same as say Canadians or New Zealanders are treated, with the only noticeable difference from the present being that our passports were stamped, our stay limited to 3 months and we could not get a job. But would that be so? I wouldn't expect a Shengen visa requirement for UK nationals, but if they were angry enough with us .... ?

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

mwpt wrote: »

Out of interest, have you ever got any person on this board who accuses you of racism to just acknowledge the small fact that more people bidding for houses means higher prices?

I would like to reply but I don't understand what point you're wishing to make

Which part is unclear? I don't agree with arbitrary accusations of racism, I'm just wondering if you've ever managed to have reasonable discussion on the impact of immigration on house prices, without the race card being used.

wymondham

wymondham wrote: »

Sorry its DM, but which one of these two is factually correct? Is the other lying or simply does not understand?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3458866/Cabinet-rebel-Priti-Patel-says-David-Cameron-s-EU-deal-ripped-EU-judges.html

Now someone else adds their view. I'd be very interested to know who is factually correct?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35646004

it would be great if some independent clever person can do a website for the public listing for and against arguments, with no political bias - just 100% accurate facts.

vivatifosi

wymondham wrote: »

Now someone else adds their view. I'd be very interested to know who is factually correct?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35646004

Both Patel and Gove are probably factually correct that the judges could "rip up" the agreement. That does not mean that they will rip it up.

We are at a fine balance between in and out at the moment. In the event that we voted in, in good faith, but then the laws were changed, I think the whole country would then cry foul and the march to the exit would become irreversible. One would hope the judges can foresee that.

wymondham

vivatifosi wrote: »

Both Patel and Gove are probably factually correct that the judges could "rip up" the agreement. That does not mean that they will rip it up.

We are at a fine balance between in and out at the moment. In the event that we voted in, in good faith, but then the laws were changed, I think the whole country would then cry foul and the march to the exit would become irreversible. One would hope the judges can foresee that.

So David Cameron is incorrect when he says it is legally binding? I presume he also knows that, given he's been in the room negotiating this?

Solid facts are what will be missing from this campaign I think... how are people supposed to make an informed judgement when both sides state the facts, which happen to be polarised - someone's telling porkies! 'Interpretation' has no place in this campaign as its way too important...

-1 to David Cameron in my eyes for putting his spin on this point alone...

vivatifosi

wymondham wrote: »

So David Cameron is incorrect when he says it is legally binding?

Solid facts are what will be missing from this campaign I think... how are people supposed to make an informed judgement when both sides state the facts, which happen to be polarised - someone's telling porkies! 'Interpretation' has no place in this campaign as its way too important...

He may have been told it won't be overturned, who knows? They will be mad to overturn it, for the reason I've stated. Gove and Patel are playing on fears.

I am a marginal in at the moment. If they went back on what has been agreed, I'd become as outie quicker than you could say "I'm a European get me out if here".

Screwing over a net contributor would be incredibly stupid.

antrobus

vivatifosi wrote: »

He may have been told it won't be overturned, who knows? They will be mad to overturn it, for the reason I've stated. Gove and Patel are playing on fears.

I am a marginal in at the moment. If they went back on what has been agreed, I'd become as outie quicker than you could say "I'm a European get me out if here".

Screwing over a net contributor would be incredibly stupid.

The European Council says that it is legally binding. Or it will be when the UK "informs the Council that it has decided to remain a member of the European Union".

http://ec.europa.eu/news/2016/02/20160219_en.htm

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

Which part is unclear? I don't agree with arbitrary accusations of racism, I'm just wondering if you've ever managed to have reasonable discussion on the impact of immigration on house prices, without the race card being used.

no, there has been no such discussion about the impact of immigration on housing