EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[unbeliever]

That article doesn't say the government would ignore a vote to leave. It says we would leave but stay in the Single Market. Norway and Switzerland are both outside the EU but in the Single Market. It would mean we'd have to pay in to be a member of it but have no say in the rules. We'd also still have all the immigration, meaning UKIP would lose all its MEPs but freedom of movement of people would continue. That's what I call a win-win.

 

The Brexit Conservative MPs will not support this and there are more than enough of them to bring down the government.

The government would win the vote on this matter as they'd have the support of opposition MPs, but the Brexit MPs would not forgive them and the government would fall not long afterwards.

[L00b]

That article doesn't say the government would ignore a vote to leave. It says we would leave but stay in the Single Market. Norway and Switzerland are both outside the EU but in the Single Market. It would mean we'd have to pay in to be a member of it but have no say in the rules. We'd also still have all the immigration, meaning UKIP would lose all its MEPs but freedom of movement of people would continue. That's what I call a win-win.

The UK exits the EU and signs up to the just-like-being-in-the-EU-without-the-advantages EEA/EFTA-like agreement, and that's a win-win?

 

Surely you jest?

 

That's the worst possible outcome, by an intergalactic mile: for all the talk of Brexiting to "regain national sovereignty", that outcome would effectively "transfer" it all straight back to the EU, so what would be the point?

 

Killing off UKIP as a political force is not worth surrendering the UK's advantages under its current membership. By any stretch howsoever.

 

EDIT: many are constantly attacking the Remain campaign for fearmongering, but as I came across it this weekend, I'll just

put this here for balance

Edited June 6, 2016 by L00b

[Harrystottle]

The Irish voted on a treaty, it seems that they had specific concerns regarding the treaty so they rejected it. The EU addressed these concerns and the Irish were happy to accept the new treaty.

 

The Danes rejected the Maastricht treaty in a referendum. By the EU rules that should have been that. Everyone had to be in favour or the Treaty was dead. But the Maastricht treaty wasn't killed off, it was implemented.

 

When presented with the EU constitution, both the French and the Dutch rejected it. Again, that should have been that. It wasn't, large parts of the EU constitution were cut and pasted into the Lisbon Treaty and the French and Dutch votes ignored.

 

To get a view of how the EU elite's minds work I give you again the incomparable Jean Claude Junker, who said "I believe neither the French nor the Dutch really rejected the constitutional treaty" - when that is exactly what they had just done.

http://www.azquotes.com/author/42008-Jean_Claude_Juncker

[sutty27]

That article doesn't say the government would ignore a vote to leave. It says we would leave but stay in the Single Market. Norway and Switzerland are both outside the EU but in the Single Market. It would mean we'd have to pay in to be a member of it but have no say in the rules. We'd also still have all the immigration, meaning UKIP would lose all its MEPs but freedom of movement of people would continue. That's what I call a win-win.

 

I few MP's would be sacrificing their chance at the next election if they did that, and the next government elected on a mandate to cut immigration would have no choice but to leave the single market if free movement wasn't stopped.

[JFKvsNixon]

The Danes rejected the Maastricht treaty in a referendum. By the EU rules that should have been that. Everyone had to be in favour or the Treaty was dead. But the Maastricht treaty wasn't killed off, it was implemented.

 

When presented with the EU constitution, both the French and the Dutch rejected it. Again, that should have been that. It wasn't, large parts of the EU constitution were cut and pasted into the Lisbon Treaty and the French and Dutch votes ignored.

 

To get a view of how the EU elite's minds work I give you again the incomparable Jean Claude Junker, who said "I believe neither the French nor the Dutch really rejected the constitutional treaty" - when that is exactly what they had just done.

http://www.azquotes.com/author/42008-Jean_Claude_Juncker

 

The EU renegotiated the treaty and allowed the Danes with four exceptions, the Danes voted to accept this treat in 1993. Didn't the French and Dutch rejection of the the treaty lead to the EU formulating the Lisbon treaty two years later?

[MobileB]

The Brexit Conservative MPs will not support this and there are more than enough of them to bring down the government.

The government would win the vote on this matter as they'd have the support of opposition MPs, but the Brexit MPs would not forgive them and the government would fall not long afterwards.

 

But not enough of them if the other parties vote in favour. Remember 76% of MPs support remain.

[panzer1]

But would we still have to give the scum of Europe benefits, if not then I think you may be surprised to find numbers will drop. Or we can legislate to say come if you want but no benefits until you have been here 5 years paying in.

But if not and your liblabcon MP votes against your wishes then UKIP will campaign on that ticket that you cannot trust your MP to represent you and they would be right, people do not like being taken for fools, so could see the rise of UKIP rather than their demise.

[L00b]

Thanks for a very pragmatic post, CaptainSwing.

 

It's certainly interesting to witness the paradox of Brexiters arguing about the alleged loss of sovereignty to the EU, but then running to the WTO whenever Remain economic arguments are put forward (whilst conveniently ignoring comparable issues of 'sovereignty lost' to the WTO)...and never a word was said about sovereignty issues with the UN, NATO, <etc.> and the myriad other international clubs the UK is signed up to independently of the EU, and which all have a greater or lesser influence on national policy

Edited June 6, 2016 by L00b

[MobileB]

But would we still have to give the scum of Europe benefits, if not then I think you may be surprised to find numbers will drop. Or we can legislate to say come if you want but no benefits until you have been here 5 years paying in.

But if not and your liblabcon MP votes against your wishes then UKIP will campaign on that ticket that you cannot trust your MP to represent you and they would be right, people do not like being taken for fools, so could see the rise of UKIP rather than their demise.

 

What a fantastic post. "the scum of Europe benefits". Nothing like us and them eh.

[JFKvsNixon]

Thanks for a very pragmatic post, CaptainSwing.

 

It's certainly interesting to witness the paradox of Brexiters arguing about the alleged loss of sovereignty to the EU, but then running to the WTO whenever Remain economic arguments are put forward (whilst conveniently ignoring comparable issues of 'sovereignty lost' to the WTO)...and never a word was said about sovereignty issues with the UN, NATO, <etc.> and the myriad other international clubs the UK is signed up to independently of the EU, and which all have a greater or lesser influence on national policy

 

I imagine a UK post Brexit to be even more influenced by the markets than it is at the moment. So this illusion of the UK being able to make all it's own decision is as big a smokescreen as immigration is.