If we vote to Remain what happens?

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

This is a particularly good point.

Clapton often makes the point that there is not unanimity in the Remain camp. He has a point, but most of the differences as far as I can see are not on the principle of EU membership but the implementation. Corbyn clearly wants more employment laws, Cameron wants less constraints on businesses etc. But they at least have a plan to continue the present arrangement and stand up to anything that suggests closer integration.

But the differences in Brexit are more fundamental, some want a close association with the EU (like Norway) and others want the EU to be treated like another nation. The Leave campaign owe it to the public to state a credible plan and a clear vision post exit. The economists who wrote the case for Brexit see the future as the UK being independent of any trading block agreements, but so many Leavers have a vision of an EU deal that keeps much of what we are opting out of (be that Norway, Swiss, or something similar).

You seem to think that after brexit, the 'leave campaign ' will be the government.
The Leave Campaign have absolutely no legal standing and can make no laws in the UK.
We still have a parliamentary system that requiring votes and messy things like that.

HornetSaver

CLAPTON wrote: »

You seem to think that after brexit, the 'leave campaign ' will be the government.
The Leave Campaign have absolutely no legal standing and can make no laws in the UK.
We still have a parliamentary system that requiring votes and messy things like that.

Technically correct.

Though I find it inconceivable that we could vote to leave the EU in June 2016, and by the time that decision takes effect (June 2018), the leader of the Conservative Party will be someone who backed remaining.

CLAPTON

HornetSaver wrote: »

Technically correct.

Though I find it inconceivable that we could vote to leave the EU in June 2016, and by the time that decision takes effect (June 2018), the leader of the Conservative Party will be someone who backed remaining.

how does that change anything?

HornetSaver

CLAPTON wrote: »

how does that change anything?

It means that a vote to leave is a vote that makes a left-leaning government more likely post-2020.

Something which is inconceivable at this point.

michaels

vivatifosi wrote: »

It's a fair question HS. I thought there was an interesting point made in the Paxman programme... that we don't send our political "top guns" to serve on the commission, alongside all of the other countries (he made a parallel to the Eurovision Song Contest. It strikes me that we play a different game.

If our brightest and best start to stand for euroopean office rather than UK office it rather lets the cat out of the bag about where the balance of power lies...

HornetSaver wrote: »

It means that a vote to leave is a vote that makes a left-leaning government more likely post-2020.

Something which is inconceivable at this point.

Not something I would pesonally support, but I do support the idea that we can choose our own govt who can actually make decisions, even ones I personally don't like, rather than always having the same rles whatever sham democratic votes we have. as happens under remain.

CLAPTON

HornetSaver wrote: »

It means that a vote to leave is a vote that makes a left-leaning government more likely post-2020.

Something which is inconceivable at this point.

is that as well as WW3 or instead of?

HornetSaver

CLAPTON wrote: »

is that as well as WW3 or instead of?

World War III would probably start if the potential flash points thought no-one would back America in invading them.

But it's simple really. Whether Brexit is a good or bad long-term thing remains to be seen. There will undoubtedly be a significant short-term ripple effect, which the government of the day will say is a temporary setback, and the opposition parties will undoubtedly point to as evidence that they're failing. There's no way they'll be credited with riding those rapids before 2020, hence another party or set of parties get in. There's no-one with more than one seat on the right, which (barring the biggest shake-up of the political system in living memory) leaves the center or the left.

mrginge

BobQ wrote: »

This is a particularly good point.

Clapton often makes the point that there is not unanimity in the Remain camp. He has a point, but most of the differences as far as I can see are not on the principle of EU membership but the implementation. Corbyn clearly wants more employment laws, Cameron wants less constraints on businesses etc. But they at least have a plan to continue the present arrangement and stand up to anything that suggests closer integration.

But the differences in Brexit are more fundamental, some want a close association with the EU (like Norway) and others want the EU to be treated like another nation. The Leave campaign owe it to the public to state a credible plan and a clear vision post exit. The economists who wrote the case for Brexit see the future as the UK being independent of any trading block agreements, but so many Leavers have a vision of an EU deal that keeps much of what we are opting out of (be that Norway, Swiss, or something similar).

No-one in the remain camp has outlined their vision for a reformed EU nor have they outlined what measures they would take should those reforms not occur.

HornetSaver

mrginge wrote: »

No-one in the remain camp has outlined their vision for a reformed EU nor have they outlined what measures they would take should those reforms not occur.

There is an obscure, media-shy fellow by the name of David Cameron who might disagree with you on that one.

zagubov

HornetSaver wrote: »

They're both interesting questions, but the outcome of the one you answered seems a bit more well-defined.

It seems quite obvious that Brexit will trigger another Scottish referendum (I'm not saying I agree with asking the same question multiple times, I'm just pragmatic enough to accept that Brexit against Scotland's wishes is a big enough reason for the nationalists to shout "game-changer" and be taken seriously. Far more significant than the Prime Minister wearing a blue rosette on results night instead of a red one).

It seems equally obvious that the Irish border would be reinforced, and history shows us that a change in the relationship between Britain and Ireland is more often than not a bad thing for the North.

Finally it seems clear that (for all the post-mortem talk there will inevitably be) England and Wales will essentially get on with the hand they've been dealt with.

As regards Scotland, it won't trigger another demand for a referendum unless the polls suggest a Yes majority of somewhere around 60% upwards, if not more. I suspect Nichola's not an idiot and will only call for it when it suits her.

Northern Ireland intrigues me. This could have a major influence on them.

I don't reckon the Republic will join Schengen; after all Denmark hasn't really done it and it's in the Nordic freedom of movement area with four Schengen countries. If it can reconcile all those systems Eire could handle anything.