Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

Deal or No Deal?

  • Voted Leave - May's Deal

  • Voted Leave - No Deal

  • Voted Leave - Second Referendum

  • Did not vote/abstained - May's Deal

  • Did not vote/abstained - No Deal

  • Did not vote/abstained - Second Referendum

  • Voted Remain - May's Deal

  • Voted Remain - No Deal

  • Voted Remain - Second Referendum

Results are only viewable after voting.
Really hope the brits chose to leave the EU, and this will be the start of more countries doing the same.
Brussels is getting more and more powerful, trying to expand whilst it's citizens don't want that. The refugee crisis especially proved to me that it is ran by a bunch of incompetents, and they are not able to handle any major issues when it comes down to it.

Bring back the old way, EEC style.
 
Touring Mars
Stayed in to watch the ITV EU Referendum debate tonight....

grumpycat.jpg
Click to expand...

Tuned into ITV+1 about 10 minutes ago... lasted 5 minutes before muting it. I don't think I'll be any less well informed for not watching.

Are you some kind of masochist? You already voted!!!
 
Here's a question. If Europe falls apart, in say five years, would the economic arguments for staying in, be as relevant? It's not a question that I have seen or heard an answer on by either side. But is it a viewpoint that should be considered? All current discussions, seem to assume that if we stay, Europe will remain the same.

[Afterthought edit] If Europe is going to fall-over then a Brexit vote would seem to be prudent.
 
Last edited:
x3ra
Here's a question. If Europe falls apart, in say five years, would the economic arguments for staying in, be as relevant? It's not a question that I have seen or heard an answer on by either side. But is it a viewpoint that should be considered? All current discussions, seem to assume that if we stay, Europe will remain the same.

[Afterthought edit] If Europe is going to fall-over then a Brexit vote would seem to be prudent.
Click to expand...
That cuts both ways, and is arguably more likely to occur if the UK does leave the EU.
 
I agree. [Passing thought] Strangely enough. It seems to me that those in favour of trade-unions, I see as being against the EU and those who want to stay in the EU want to get rid of unions. (I have no evidence for this being true, just a suspicion.)[/end thought]

If true, then self-interest is a primary factor.

So am I right? In the event of a imminent Euro-Union failure, would we be better being in or out?
 
x3ra
Here's a question. If Europe falls apart, in say five years, would the economic arguments for staying in, be as relevant? It's not a question that I have seen or heard an answer on by either side. But is it a viewpoint that should be considered? All current discussions, seem to assume that if we stay, Europe will remain the same.
Click to expand...
It's a good question, but my feelings are that the EU is desperately in need of reform, but also of support - Europe needs to work in one form or another, and the UK will continue to benefit immensely if Europe 'works', but the UK would also be severely hampered by a crippled and unproductive Europe.

Outspacer
Ahh, now that would've been interesting!
Click to expand...
It was that and the fact that the 21 year old girls I was out with the other night were not available this evening :(
 
x3ra
I agree. [Passing thought] Strangely enough. It seems to me that those in favour of trade-unions, I see as being against the EU and those who want to stay in the EU want to get rid of unions. (I have no evidence for this being true, just a suspicion.)[/end thought]

If true, then self-interest is a primary factor.

So am I right? In the event of a imminent Euro-Union failure, would we be better being in or out?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how you get to that given that the vast majority of UK trade unions support remain.
 
x3ra
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-36449699

The motion debated by Nipsa members on Friday described the EU as "a club for the rich" that does not provide "meaningful assistance to workers".

Which I agree with. So not cut and dried.
Click to expand...
So one of the smaller unions based only in Northern Ireland supports out, but you ignore the unions mentioned in the same article that support remain! You should have gone for the RMT (mentioned in the same piece) as with 85,000 members they are twice the size!

Not a huge surprise given your poor form on the use of sources in the past.

I would also in future suggest actually recommend a little more research as the UK's largest Trade Unions have recommended to members that they support remain, they are speaking to 6 million members, rather than the 45,000 members that Nipsa have and 85,000 that the RMT have!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ers-call-on-6m-members-to-vote-against-brexit

I also made nor mention, nor implied that it was cut and dried, rather I clearly said the 'majority' supported Remain, which by membership numbers is true.
 
Last edited:
Single Market Acess after Brexit?

Not going to happen according to the German Minister (and given that Germany would have a veto on such a proposal it carries weight), with Germany seemingly determined to ensure that a UK exit doesn't start a wave of similar referendums.

"In an interview in a Brexit-themed issue of German weekly Der Spiegel, the influential veteran politician ruled out the possibility of the UK following a Swiss or Norwegian model where it could enjoy the benefits of the single market without being an EU member.

“That won’t work,” Schäuble told Der Spiegel. “It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw.

“If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...wolfgang-schauble-says?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
 
Scaff
Single Market Acess after Brexit?

Not going to happen according to the German Minister (and given that Germany would have a veto on such a proposal it carries weight), with Germany seemingly determined to ensure that a UK exit doesn't start a wave of similar referendums.

"In an interview in a Brexit-themed issue of German weekly Der Spiegel, the influential veteran politician ruled out the possibility of the UK following a Swiss or Norwegian model where it could enjoy the benefits of the single market without being an EU member.

“That won’t work,” Schäuble told Der Spiegel. “It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw.

“If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...wolfgang-schauble-says?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Click to expand...

To be fair, he says a lot more than that - pretty much anything he can think of to sway voters to vote remain. This is all just the talk of a scared man. He says “Europe will also work without Britain if necessary,”. Well, sure, if 'working' is holding together solely due to threats of punitive denial of trade should you leave!

In amongst what he says is something I've suspected would be a good outcome - a very narrow 'in' vote, acting as a driver for further EU reforms. If without Scotland we would've voted to leave, the threat of a further referendum is a tangible bargaining chip.
 
Scaff
Single Market Acess after Brexit?

Not going to happen according to the German Minister (and given that Germany would have a veto on such a proposal it carries weight), with Germany seemingly determined to ensure that a UK exit doesn't start a wave of similar referendums.

"In an interview in a Brexit-themed issue of German weekly Der Spiegel, the influential veteran politician ruled out the possibility of the UK following a Swiss or Norwegian model where it could enjoy the benefits of the single market without being an EU member.

“That won’t work,” Schäuble told Der Spiegel. “It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw.

“If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...wolfgang-schauble-says?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Click to expand...
You don't seriously think any EU politician would say ANYTHING that might give people the idea that voting to leave is the thing to do, do you?
 
Tired Tyres
You don't seriously think any EU politician would say ANYTHING that might give people the idea that voting to leave is the thing to do, do you?
Click to expand...

Can you see the obvious sense in his argument though? Remember that after Leave we no longer hold any say in a veto while all the people we're sure will be our partners... do.
 
TenEightyOne
Can you see the obvious sense in his argument though?
Click to expand...
Frankly no...

He's saying that the UK cannot do the same as Switzerland and Norway because we are currently members of the EU. Perhaps if the EU didn't make agreements with non-EU countries then that would make some sense.
 
Last edited:
Touring Mars
He's saying that the UK cannot do the same as Switzerland and Norway because we are currently members of the EU. Perhaps if the EU didn't make agreements with non-EU countries then that would make some sense.
Click to expand...

However, none of those countries are in a post-EU status - the EFTA countries (Norway, Lichenstein, Iceland, Switzerland iirc) are not. What he is theoretically proposing is that a post-Leave UK would get far less leeway and be made an example of, mostly to discourage other countries from also wishing to devolve.
 
Touring Mars
Frankly no...

He's saying that the UK cannot do the same as Switzerland and Norway because we are currently members of the EU. Perhaps if the EU didn't make agreements with non-EU countries then that would make some sense.
Click to expand...
I can to a degree.

The inference is that what would be needed to hold membership similar to the Swiss or Norwegians, in particular free movement of people, is what the UK would be voting against. As such we are (in his argument) voting not just to leave, but also rejecting that core ideal that would be needed for such as approach.
 
TenEightyOne
However, none of those countries are in a post-EU status - the EFTA countries (Norway, Lichenstein, Iceland, Switzerland iirc) are not. What he is theoretically proposing is that a post-Leave UK would get far less leeway and be made an example of, mostly to discourage other countries from also wishing to devolve.
Click to expand...
The idea that the British people can be persuaded to remain inside the EU by threatening to 'make an example of' the UK if it votes to leave is surely going to backfire. He should be making the positive case for remaining, not dishing out empty threats.

Scaff
I can to a degree.

The inference is that what would be needed to hold membership similar to the Swiss or Norwegians, in particular free movement of people, is what the UK would be voting against. As such we are (in his argument) voting not just to leave, but also rejecting that core ideal that would be needed for such as approach.
Click to expand...
It makes alot more sense in the context that Switzerland and Norway also subscribe to the free movement of people from the EU despite not being members of the EU - and it does seem fair to expect any member of the single market to abide by that rule as well, however this isn't clearly stated in the article.
 
Touring Mars
The idea that the British people can be persuaded to remain inside the EU by threatening to 'make an example of' the UK if it votes to leave is surely going to backfire. He should be making the positive case for remaining, not dishing out empty threats.


It makes alot more sense in the context that Switzerland and Norway also subscribe to the free movement of people from the EU despite not being members of the EU - and it does seem fair to expect any member of the single market to abide by that rule as well, however this isn't clearly stated in the article.
Click to expand...
To be fair it's an extract of a full article translated from German, so suspect some context or detail has been lost.
 
TenEightyOne
However, none of those countries are in a post-EU status - the EFTA countries (Norway, Lichenstein, Iceland, Switzerland iirc) are not. What he is theoretically proposing is that a post-Leave UK would get far less leeway and be made an example of, mostly to discourage other countries from also wishing to devolve.
Click to expand...
Damned if they do damned if they don't..

Clearly they don't want to cut us any slack as it would act as encouragement to others but on the other hand if they tried to "make an example" of us, what do you think significant minority populations in each of the other 27 countries would be asking their own politicians? Something along the lines of "is it acceptable for Brussels to act that way to a country who's people have exercised their democratic will?"
 
Tired Tyres
Damned if they do damned if they don't..

Clearly they don't want to cut us any slack as it would act as encouragement to others but on the other hand if they tried to "make an example" of us, what do you think significant minority populations in each of the other 27 countries would be asking their own politicians? Something along the lines of "is it acceptable for Brussels to act that way to a country who's people have exercised their democratic will?"
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it will, I suspect that the remaining members would have more of an issue if we left and then managed to get as good or better a deal than we had.

I don't for a second think that many in Europe feel that a worse deal for the UK should we leave would be a surprise (and the ones I've spoken to have said as much). Rather it's the out campaigns insistence that that not only would this be possible, but also easy that surprise's those over spoken to.
 
Tired Tyres
Damned if they do damned if they don't..

Clearly they don't want to cut us any slack as it would act as encouragement to others but on the other hand if they tried to "make an example" of us, what do you think significant minority populations in each of the other 27 countries would be asking their own politicians? Something along the lines of "is it acceptable for Brussels to act that way to a country who's people have exercised their democratic will?"
Click to expand...

I agree. Also, it makes a far stronger case for EU membership if they give us a fair, non-punitive, albeit possibly worse, deal on exit... and then proceed to be more prosperous than us. Perhaps the minister has some doubts as to whether that prosperity gap is a given.
 
Outspacer
I agree. Also, it makes a far stronger case for EU membership if they give us a fair, non-punitive, albeit possibly worse, deal on exit... and then proceed to be more prosperous than us. Perhaps the minister has some doubts as to whether that prosperity gap is a given.
Click to expand...
We have one of the best 'deals' as far as EU membership goes right now, I think its a given that any deal we get once we leave will be worse.

The question is how much worse and given that two of the central focus points of the leave campaign is an end to the free movement of people and and end to any sort of payment to the EU then its going to be a good deal worse than what we have now.

The Swiss and Norwegians had to accept the free movement of people, pay around 70% of what we do, a range of EU regulations (that they have no part in making) just to get a free trade deal. Leave has said that they will accept none of that, as such I predict that a 'punitive' deal is pretty much what we are setting ourselves up for should we leave and those commitments be stuck to by Boris and Co.

In other words what many on leave consider punitive, I personally see as pretty much fair given the red lines that leave have drawn and are insisting they will stick to.
 
Scaff
We have one of the best 'deals' as far as EU membership goes right now, I think its a given that any deal we get once we leave will be worse.

The question is how much worse and given that two of the central focus points of the leave campaign is an end to the free movement of people and and end to any sort of payment to the EU then its going to be a good deal worse than what we have now.

The Swiss and Norwegians had to accept the free movement of people, pay around 70% of what we do, a range of EU regulations (that they have no part in making) just to get a free trade deal. Leave has said that they will accept none of that, as such I predict that a 'punitive' deal is pretty much what we are setting ourselves up for should we leave and those commitments be stuck to by Boris and Co.

In other words what many on leave consider punitive, I personally see as pretty much fair given the red lines that leave have drawn and are insisting they will stick to.
Click to expand...

That's beside the point, punitive is punitive - i.e. worse than fair, whatever that might be.
 
Outspacer
That's beside the point, punitive is punitive - i.e. worse than fair, whatever that might be.
Click to expand...
You missed the point entirely.

What leave seem to consider punitive could be said to be fair. Not getting access to a free trade deal if you refuse to accept any of the existing conditions for doing so is not punitive.

What leave seem to assume they will get (and consider fair) is to get access to free trade with zero EU conditions, something no other European country has at all. That's not a fair deal, that's absurd.

However just to check, please outline what you think a fair deal for access to the free market would be.
 

Latest Posts

Back