Sensible Topic How will you vote in the EU referendum ?
- Thread starter Bronto
- Start date
- Status
countryboy
Inactive User
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 4,345
- Reaction score
- 723
They have just increased them bud . Changed my anti-phycotic one lol so you have no ideas how close to the truth you came there lol
I have every idea, only need to read your posts at different times of day.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Messages
- 2,391
- Reaction score
- 3,886
I voted OUT and happy to be OUT
No second referendum for the In voters, they had their chance and lost fair & square
now lets move on with our Independence and stop crying
democracy & independence over money any day for me.
No second referendum for the In voters, they had their chance and lost fair & square
now lets move on with our Independence and stop crying
democracy & independence over money any day for me.
Yep and the Country would be Fooked then.
countryboy
Inactive User
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 4,345
- Reaction score
- 723
Still waiting on this to be put into place though and it has to be voted on by the mps at Westminster they have the final say
From 2007
[h=1]What if Britain HADN'T joined the EU?[/h]by CHRISTOPHER BOOKER
Last updated at 12:06 06 January 2007
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, which launched what was eventually to become the European Union. Whatever our European partners may get up to in commemorating this historic moment, in two months time, it is safe to predict that celebrations here in Britain will be pretty muted. It is unlikely that cheering crowds will be turning out to watch fireworks exploding over the Thames. Although all our major political parties are totally wedded to our membership of this vast political project, the EU's own polls have consistently shown that the people of Britain are less happy to be part of it than those of any other country in Europe.
Perhaps it may be timely therefore to mark this anniversary in our own way, by asking what Britain would be like today if, all those decades ago, our then-political leaders, such as Harold Macmillan and Edward Heath, had never taken us into it in the first place.
If we had never entered the 'Common Market' back in 1973, would we now, as the Europhiles like to tell us, be just an impoverished little island standing sadly alone on the edge of Europe, gazing in envy at the success of the great project we were so foolish not to join?
Or is it possible that we might in 2007 be living in a Britain significantly richer, happier, freer, more democratic, more selfrespecting and more at ease with itself than it is today?
To imagine how Britain might have fared if we had never been drawn into 'Europe' but remained on the outside as an independent nation, like Norway or Switzerland - the two countries which have persistently refused to join - we must consider both what we are meant to have gained and also what we have lost.
And here we immediately come up against a paradox. The most obvious thing we didn't gain from entering the Common Market was the one benefit we were told was our main reason for joining.
When Macmillan first decided to take us in back in the early Sixties, it was because Britain was suddenly suffering from a severe loss of self-confidence. As U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson observed in the Forties, Britain had 'lost an empire and not yet found a role'.
POLITICALLY and economically we seemed as a nation to be spiralling downwards - and this was just when we could see those original six Common Market countries having made a miraculous recovery from the chaos of World War II.
The promise was that, by going into partnership with them, we might learn the secret of their newfound dynamism - and for this we were prepared to turn our back on so much of what over the centuries had given Britain her unique place in the world.
In particular, by throwing in our destiny with Europe, we were expected to turn away from the English- speaking world and abandon our close historic and economic ties with the worldwide Commonwealth, with which we conducted nearly half our overseas trade.
The paradox was that when, in the 1980s, we did eventually rediscover the secret of economic success, in that transformation which took place under Mrs Thatcher, this had nothing whatever to do with our membership of what had by then become the 'European Community'.
Britain's renaissance, which by the late 1990s had made us again the fourth-largest economy in the world, was entirely home-grown. And by this time that original equation which had drawn us into 'Europe' in the first place had been almost entirely reversed.
It was now those Continental countries whose economies were suffocating under all the problems Britain had solved by her own efforts in the 1980s - while most of the countries across the world whose economies have in the past decade been bounding ahead, from America to Australia to India, are part of that Englishspeaking world and Commonwealth on which we had decided to turn our backs.
In hindsight, we can now see that, had we remained outside the European project, as it has become increasingly sunk in economic gloom, we could have remained a natural part of what has become the most dynamic sector of the global economy.
In taking that mighty gamble back in the 1960s and 1970s, it has very much looked as though we backed the wrong horse - and, simply in economic terms, we have paid a colossal price for it.
Switching the main focus of our trade away from the English- speaking world to Europe, has turned out to be a very one-sided deal indeed. In the past 30 years, so much more do our European partners sell to us than we sell to them that we have run up a staggering deficit on our dealings with the EU, amounting to £300 billion.
Without our trade with America and the rest of the world - for which we do not need to take on the deadweight of all those EU directives and regulations estimated to cost us a further £120 billion a year - we should long since have gone bankrupt.
The ultimate proof of how well we might have survived outside the EU is that, even today, both Norway and Switzerland, two of the richest countries in Europe, export a higher percentage of their products to the EU than we do, without having had to join it.
BUT THIS is only a small part of what we have given up as the price for belonging to the European Union. When we look at how much else we have lost, we can see just how different Britain might look today if we had never joined.
The real sacrifice we have made in submitting to the EU's system of 'supranational government' is that of the right to decide so many of our own laws and policies.
If we had never joined we would still have the right to decide our own immigration policy and who should have the right to settle and work in the United Kingdom.
If we had never joined, we might still have the most efficient and prosperous agriculture in Europe, as we did before we had to submit to the
cockeyed rules of a Common Agricultural Policy drawn up primarily to serve the interests of France.
If we had never joined we might still have the most successful fishing industry in Europe, as we did before we had to hand over our fishing waters, once the richest and most efficiently managed in the world, to a Common Fisheries Policy which has seen the destruction of our fishing fleet and produced an ecological disaster.
If we had never joined, we would still have retained the right to choose our own weights and measures. It would not have become a criminal offence to sell a pound of bananas. We would have been free to retain the system we shared with the most dynamic economy in the world, the U.S.
If we had never joined we would not be facing the shambles which is now engulfing the way we dispose of our rubbish. We would not be forced to abandon our sensible policy of burying waste to reclaim land (just because some of our Continental partners, such as the Netherlands, have run out of land to do so), supposedly to promote recycling - when in reality this means we must now export millions of tons of rubbish from all those 'recycling' bins to countries such as China (where much of it is buried in landfill).
If we had never joined, we would not be locked into the pie-in-the sky EU policy whereby we are meant within 13 years to be generating 20 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources - which means we are about to cover vast areas of our countryside with wind turbines so unreliable that they will achieve nothing except land us with a massive energy crisis.
If we had never joined, our Armed Forces would not be facing collapse through our wasting tens of billions of pounds on grandiose
'European' projects such as the Eurofighter and giant aircraft carriers, supposedly equipping them to play their part in some fantasy EU force of the future - when this means starving them of the much smaller sums needed to equip them for the wars they are actually fighting today.
If we had never joined, we would still be able to decide whom we trade with around the world, on our own terms. We would not be forced to accept a crazily protectionist policy, decided in Brussels, which inflicts enormous damage on the economies of scores of other countries, notably in Africa and Asia.
If we had never joined, we would still be able to decide for ourselves on those huge areas of foreign policy which are now dictated on an EU-wide basis (increasingly supported by the EU's own worldwide diplomatic service and embassies, replacing those of member states).
But perhaps the greatest prize we might have retained if we had stayed out is that we might have avoided the subtly demoralising effect membership of this vast, ramshackle organisation has had on our democracy and the whole way we are governed.
Not the least reason why our Parliament and politicians are these days held in such unprecedentedly low esteem is that so much of the power they once exercised on our behalf has drained away, to faceless armies of technocrats we cannot any longer call to account.
The fact that election turnouts have sunk to their lowest-ever level is in part a silent judgment on the way our politicians are no longer responsible for deciding so many of the laws and policies which shape our lives.
When we consider the countless ways in which our country's life and institutions have been damaged by our membership of the 'European project', it is hard not to conclude that the decision to join it may have been the greatest political blunder in Britain's history.
Someone who eventually came to this same conclusion was not only rather better-qualified than most of us to pronounce on such matters but was also someone who, back in the 1970s, had been one of Mr Heath's most fervent supporters in backing Britain's entry.
DRAWING on the experience of those 11 years when, as Prime Minister, she saw the real nature of the 'European project' at first hand, Mrs Thatcher wrote in her last book that the attempt to create a European superstate would be seen in the future as having been 'the greatest folly of the modern era'.
She went on to say that for Britain, 'with her traditional strengths and global destiny', to have become part of it, would come to be seen as having been 'a political error of the first magnitude'.
The fact is that, at a time when the political judgment of our leaders had been warped by our political and economic decline, they were led into taking what amounted to a colossal gamble - a gamble we can now see, 30 years later, to have spectacularly failed.
If we had refused to shackle ourselves to that European dream, it is hard to imagine any way in which our country might not today be in a very much better and happier state than it is.
We can see the proof of that in the state of the two countries which have more than once resisted that same temptation, both much smaller than Britain. Norway and Switzerland, the countries which stayed out, are not only today the two richest countries in Europe. They have fiercely held on to their national identity and self-respect.
Arguably the biggest single problem Britain faces today is that, having made that 'political error of the first magnitude', we must now live with the consequences.
So long as our political leaders remain blinkered in refusing to contemplate any alternative, it seems we are going to have to live with them for a long time to come.
[h=1]What if Britain HADN'T joined the EU?[/h]by CHRISTOPHER BOOKER
Last updated at 12:06 06 January 2007
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, which launched what was eventually to become the European Union. Whatever our European partners may get up to in commemorating this historic moment, in two months time, it is safe to predict that celebrations here in Britain will be pretty muted. It is unlikely that cheering crowds will be turning out to watch fireworks exploding over the Thames. Although all our major political parties are totally wedded to our membership of this vast political project, the EU's own polls have consistently shown that the people of Britain are less happy to be part of it than those of any other country in Europe.
Perhaps it may be timely therefore to mark this anniversary in our own way, by asking what Britain would be like today if, all those decades ago, our then-political leaders, such as Harold Macmillan and Edward Heath, had never taken us into it in the first place.
If we had never entered the 'Common Market' back in 1973, would we now, as the Europhiles like to tell us, be just an impoverished little island standing sadly alone on the edge of Europe, gazing in envy at the success of the great project we were so foolish not to join?
Or is it possible that we might in 2007 be living in a Britain significantly richer, happier, freer, more democratic, more selfrespecting and more at ease with itself than it is today?
To imagine how Britain might have fared if we had never been drawn into 'Europe' but remained on the outside as an independent nation, like Norway or Switzerland - the two countries which have persistently refused to join - we must consider both what we are meant to have gained and also what we have lost.
And here we immediately come up against a paradox. The most obvious thing we didn't gain from entering the Common Market was the one benefit we were told was our main reason for joining.
When Macmillan first decided to take us in back in the early Sixties, it was because Britain was suddenly suffering from a severe loss of self-confidence. As U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson observed in the Forties, Britain had 'lost an empire and not yet found a role'.
POLITICALLY and economically we seemed as a nation to be spiralling downwards - and this was just when we could see those original six Common Market countries having made a miraculous recovery from the chaos of World War II.
The promise was that, by going into partnership with them, we might learn the secret of their newfound dynamism - and for this we were prepared to turn our back on so much of what over the centuries had given Britain her unique place in the world.
In particular, by throwing in our destiny with Europe, we were expected to turn away from the English- speaking world and abandon our close historic and economic ties with the worldwide Commonwealth, with which we conducted nearly half our overseas trade.
The paradox was that when, in the 1980s, we did eventually rediscover the secret of economic success, in that transformation which took place under Mrs Thatcher, this had nothing whatever to do with our membership of what had by then become the 'European Community'.
Britain's renaissance, which by the late 1990s had made us again the fourth-largest economy in the world, was entirely home-grown. And by this time that original equation which had drawn us into 'Europe' in the first place had been almost entirely reversed.
It was now those Continental countries whose economies were suffocating under all the problems Britain had solved by her own efforts in the 1980s - while most of the countries across the world whose economies have in the past decade been bounding ahead, from America to Australia to India, are part of that Englishspeaking world and Commonwealth on which we had decided to turn our backs.
In hindsight, we can now see that, had we remained outside the European project, as it has become increasingly sunk in economic gloom, we could have remained a natural part of what has become the most dynamic sector of the global economy.
In taking that mighty gamble back in the 1960s and 1970s, it has very much looked as though we backed the wrong horse - and, simply in economic terms, we have paid a colossal price for it.
Switching the main focus of our trade away from the English- speaking world to Europe, has turned out to be a very one-sided deal indeed. In the past 30 years, so much more do our European partners sell to us than we sell to them that we have run up a staggering deficit on our dealings with the EU, amounting to £300 billion.
Without our trade with America and the rest of the world - for which we do not need to take on the deadweight of all those EU directives and regulations estimated to cost us a further £120 billion a year - we should long since have gone bankrupt.
The ultimate proof of how well we might have survived outside the EU is that, even today, both Norway and Switzerland, two of the richest countries in Europe, export a higher percentage of their products to the EU than we do, without having had to join it.
BUT THIS is only a small part of what we have given up as the price for belonging to the European Union. When we look at how much else we have lost, we can see just how different Britain might look today if we had never joined.
The real sacrifice we have made in submitting to the EU's system of 'supranational government' is that of the right to decide so many of our own laws and policies.
If we had never joined we would still have the right to decide our own immigration policy and who should have the right to settle and work in the United Kingdom.
If we had never joined, we might still have the most efficient and prosperous agriculture in Europe, as we did before we had to submit to the
cockeyed rules of a Common Agricultural Policy drawn up primarily to serve the interests of France.
If we had never joined we might still have the most successful fishing industry in Europe, as we did before we had to hand over our fishing waters, once the richest and most efficiently managed in the world, to a Common Fisheries Policy which has seen the destruction of our fishing fleet and produced an ecological disaster.
If we had never joined, we would still have retained the right to choose our own weights and measures. It would not have become a criminal offence to sell a pound of bananas. We would have been free to retain the system we shared with the most dynamic economy in the world, the U.S.
If we had never joined we would not be facing the shambles which is now engulfing the way we dispose of our rubbish. We would not be forced to abandon our sensible policy of burying waste to reclaim land (just because some of our Continental partners, such as the Netherlands, have run out of land to do so), supposedly to promote recycling - when in reality this means we must now export millions of tons of rubbish from all those 'recycling' bins to countries such as China (where much of it is buried in landfill).
If we had never joined, we would not be locked into the pie-in-the sky EU policy whereby we are meant within 13 years to be generating 20 per cent of our electricity from renewable sources - which means we are about to cover vast areas of our countryside with wind turbines so unreliable that they will achieve nothing except land us with a massive energy crisis.
If we had never joined, our Armed Forces would not be facing collapse through our wasting tens of billions of pounds on grandiose
'European' projects such as the Eurofighter and giant aircraft carriers, supposedly equipping them to play their part in some fantasy EU force of the future - when this means starving them of the much smaller sums needed to equip them for the wars they are actually fighting today.
If we had never joined, we would still be able to decide whom we trade with around the world, on our own terms. We would not be forced to accept a crazily protectionist policy, decided in Brussels, which inflicts enormous damage on the economies of scores of other countries, notably in Africa and Asia.
If we had never joined, we would still be able to decide for ourselves on those huge areas of foreign policy which are now dictated on an EU-wide basis (increasingly supported by the EU's own worldwide diplomatic service and embassies, replacing those of member states).
But perhaps the greatest prize we might have retained if we had stayed out is that we might have avoided the subtly demoralising effect membership of this vast, ramshackle organisation has had on our democracy and the whole way we are governed.
Not the least reason why our Parliament and politicians are these days held in such unprecedentedly low esteem is that so much of the power they once exercised on our behalf has drained away, to faceless armies of technocrats we cannot any longer call to account.
The fact that election turnouts have sunk to their lowest-ever level is in part a silent judgment on the way our politicians are no longer responsible for deciding so many of the laws and policies which shape our lives.
When we consider the countless ways in which our country's life and institutions have been damaged by our membership of the 'European project', it is hard not to conclude that the decision to join it may have been the greatest political blunder in Britain's history.
Someone who eventually came to this same conclusion was not only rather better-qualified than most of us to pronounce on such matters but was also someone who, back in the 1970s, had been one of Mr Heath's most fervent supporters in backing Britain's entry.
DRAWING on the experience of those 11 years when, as Prime Minister, she saw the real nature of the 'European project' at first hand, Mrs Thatcher wrote in her last book that the attempt to create a European superstate would be seen in the future as having been 'the greatest folly of the modern era'.
She went on to say that for Britain, 'with her traditional strengths and global destiny', to have become part of it, would come to be seen as having been 'a political error of the first magnitude'.
The fact is that, at a time when the political judgment of our leaders had been warped by our political and economic decline, they were led into taking what amounted to a colossal gamble - a gamble we can now see, 30 years later, to have spectacularly failed.
If we had refused to shackle ourselves to that European dream, it is hard to imagine any way in which our country might not today be in a very much better and happier state than it is.
We can see the proof of that in the state of the two countries which have more than once resisted that same temptation, both much smaller than Britain. Norway and Switzerland, the countries which stayed out, are not only today the two richest countries in Europe. They have fiercely held on to their national identity and self-respect.
Arguably the biggest single problem Britain faces today is that, having made that 'political error of the first magnitude', we must now live with the consequences.
So long as our political leaders remain blinkered in refusing to contemplate any alternative, it seems we are going to have to live with them for a long time to come.
Last edited:
Thing is, this was in 2007, nearly 10 years later, Norway's Prime Minister doesn't seem to speak about fairy tells anymore (22/06/16):
Norway: There's no 'romantic story' outside the EU - CNN.com
Maybe the UK would have been much much better outside the EU, who knows.
To have a UK Prime Minister calling for a referendum, when politics (Cameron and others), constantly saying how "bad" is Brussels (EU) for years...it is really ironic to say that wait a minute, it is not all bad, let's remain part of EU.
Let's not forget that UK had managed to get a VERY special status within the EU
Britain is already the EU's most semi-detached member, having opted out of joining the euro single currency, the Schengen zone of passport-free travel and many areas of police and judicial cooperation.
Norway: There's no 'romantic story' outside the EU - CNN.com
Maybe the UK would have been much much better outside the EU, who knows.
To have a UK Prime Minister calling for a referendum, when politics (Cameron and others), constantly saying how "bad" is Brussels (EU) for years...it is really ironic to say that wait a minute, it is not all bad, let's remain part of EU.
Let's not forget that UK had managed to get a VERY special status within the EU
Britain is already the EU's most semi-detached member, having opted out of joining the euro single currency, the Schengen zone of passport-free travel and many areas of police and judicial cooperation.
Worth watching
Last edited by a moderator:
[h=1]Dodged that bullet EU unveils plans for ‘giant superstate’ just days after Britain voted Brexit[/h] Blueprint calls for closer cooperation for army, banks and legal systems
THE EU has unveiled plans to morph the continent’s countries into one giant superstate just days after Britain voted to leave the EU, it is claimed.
Foreign ministers from France and Germany presented the radical proposals to do away with individual member states’ armies, criminal law systems and central banks, it has been reported.
The blueprint suggests the 27 states in the bloc would also lose what is left of their paltry powers to control their own borders, including the procedure for admitting and relocation refugees, according to reports by Polish media.
Instead all powers would be transferred to Brussels under the controversial plans.
In a foreword to the nine-page report seen by the Daily Express, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and his French counterpart Jean-Marc Ayrault said: “Our countries share a common destiny and a common set of values… that give rise to an even closer union between our citizens.
“We will therefore strive for a political union in Europe and invite the next Europeans to participate in this venture.”
The plans have been branded an “ultimatum” designed to create a European “superstate dominated by large nations” by Polish state broadcaster TVP.
Poland’s foreign minister Witold Waszczykowski said: “This is not a good solution, of course, because from the time the EU was invented a lot has changed.
“The mood in European societies is different. Europe and our voters do not want to give the Union over into the hands of technocrats.”
Poland had always been an ally of the UK’s when it came to fighting creeping federalism in the EU.
The spectre of an EU army was raised by Brexiteers as a reason to quit the EU. In the wake of a vote for Brexit, EU chiefs have been more brazen about their desire to form and EU army.
In a document titled ‘EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy’, Europe’s chief diplomat said the Brussels bloc must be able to “repel, to respond and to protect”.
While the paper stops short of explicitly calling for an EU army, it does suggest its members should work more closely on defence matters.
The paper states: “We, as Europeans, need to take on a greater responsibility for our own security.
“We need to be ready and able to repel, respond and to protect ourselves against aggression, provocations and destabilisation.”
Possible areas of cooperation include the deployment of unmanned aircrafts, aerial refuelling services, satellite communication and cyber resistance and defence.
The head of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, Elmar Brok, has also argued for “more cooperation in the European defence policy”.
He said: “We need a common (military) headquarters and a coalition (of EU countries) acting in accordance with the permanent structural cooperation of the EU Treaty. From such a group an EU army could eventually emerge.”
THE EU has unveiled plans to morph the continent’s countries into one giant superstate just days after Britain voted to leave the EU, it is claimed.
Foreign ministers from France and Germany presented the radical proposals to do away with individual member states’ armies, criminal law systems and central banks, it has been reported.
The blueprint suggests the 27 states in the bloc would also lose what is left of their paltry powers to control their own borders, including the procedure for admitting and relocation refugees, according to reports by Polish media.
Instead all powers would be transferred to Brussels under the controversial plans.
In a foreword to the nine-page report seen by the Daily Express, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and his French counterpart Jean-Marc Ayrault said: “Our countries share a common destiny and a common set of values… that give rise to an even closer union between our citizens.
“We will therefore strive for a political union in Europe and invite the next Europeans to participate in this venture.”
The plans have been branded an “ultimatum” designed to create a European “superstate dominated by large nations” by Polish state broadcaster TVP.
Poland’s foreign minister Witold Waszczykowski said: “This is not a good solution, of course, because from the time the EU was invented a lot has changed.
“The mood in European societies is different. Europe and our voters do not want to give the Union over into the hands of technocrats.”
Poland had always been an ally of the UK’s when it came to fighting creeping federalism in the EU.
The spectre of an EU army was raised by Brexiteers as a reason to quit the EU. In the wake of a vote for Brexit, EU chiefs have been more brazen about their desire to form and EU army.
In a document titled ‘EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy’, Europe’s chief diplomat said the Brussels bloc must be able to “repel, to respond and to protect”.
While the paper stops short of explicitly calling for an EU army, it does suggest its members should work more closely on defence matters.
The paper states: “We, as Europeans, need to take on a greater responsibility for our own security.
“We need to be ready and able to repel, respond and to protect ourselves against aggression, provocations and destabilisation.”
Possible areas of cooperation include the deployment of unmanned aircrafts, aerial refuelling services, satellite communication and cyber resistance and defence.
The head of the European Parliament Committee on Foreign Affairs, Elmar Brok, has also argued for “more cooperation in the European defence policy”.
He said: “We need a common (military) headquarters and a coalition (of EU countries) acting in accordance with the permanent structural cooperation of the EU Treaty. From such a group an EU army could eventually emerge.”
I really dont think a lot of people realize how jealous was the rest of EU with the "special status" granted to the UK.
Economically, UK is doing so well as second GPD WITHIN EU, after Germany and their 81 millions people. (5th in the world, Norway is 30th below Spain or Poland !)
Unemployment rate in UK is 5%... 10% in France or 12% in Italy!
ROI & UK are not part of the Schengen zone WITHIN EU, no other country within EU have this privilege.
The Euro zone, outside Germany, is a failure. Britain remains strong thanks to its currency.
EU is FAR FAR, VERY FAR from perfect, but these above was achieved by GREAT Britain WITHIN the EU. So what next? Leave camp doesn't seem to have a clue. Very good point from exit is that UK will be 100% (?) in control of its border. (Not so sure if deal like Norway's is sealed)
Once out, Britain will lose ALL the advantages gained over other EU members; but STILL will have to pay millions of £ every years to EU, AND... leave free movement of labour in order to keep access to EU trade market (as Norway! again, as taken for exemple for futur negotiations)
On top of that, UK will certainly need to comply to EU's norms/regulations to export goods, but Britain will have NO say at all on those regulations.
Economically, UK is doing so well as second GPD WITHIN EU, after Germany and their 81 millions people. (5th in the world, Norway is 30th below Spain or Poland !)
Unemployment rate in UK is 5%... 10% in France or 12% in Italy!
ROI & UK are not part of the Schengen zone WITHIN EU, no other country within EU have this privilege.
The Euro zone, outside Germany, is a failure. Britain remains strong thanks to its currency.
EU is FAR FAR, VERY FAR from perfect, but these above was achieved by GREAT Britain WITHIN the EU. So what next? Leave camp doesn't seem to have a clue. Very good point from exit is that UK will be 100% (?) in control of its border. (Not so sure if deal like Norway's is sealed)
Once out, Britain will lose ALL the advantages gained over other EU members; but STILL will have to pay millions of £ every years to EU, AND... leave free movement of labour in order to keep access to EU trade market (as Norway! again, as taken for exemple for futur negotiations)
On top of that, UK will certainly need to comply to EU's norms/regulations to export goods, but Britain will have NO say at all on those regulations.
Last edited:
Highly speculative given Article 50 hasn't even been invoked as yet.
I would suggest no possibilities can be excluded.
Of course, we could do with a government first!
I would suggest no possibilities can be excluded.
Of course, we could do with a government first!
Ive heard this article 50 a few times now... wtf does it mean in layman terms
sent from 2 tin cans and some string
sent from 2 tin cans and some string
It's a section of the Treaty of Lisbon that details the leave process.
A guide to how to leave the EU if you like.
A guide to how to leave the EU if you like.
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,412
- Reaction score
- 7,023
The Manual to Freedom
I see the loonley left are protesting against democracy in london tonight.
They understand **** all about democracy and thats why they protest and are so willing to give it away to the tosspots in europe.
I can see we are heading for another referendum and possibly another till we get the 'right' result.
They understand **** all about democracy and thats why they protest and are so willing to give it away to the tosspots in europe.
I can see we are heading for another referendum and possibly another till we get the 'right' result.
Long time no see.
What brings you back ?
I have been on a few times, just keeping myself to myself like ya do haha.
Voted on this poll before we had the referendum and just reading through the posts. Exciting times ay.
Proud to be British atm.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 2,375
- Reaction score
- 1,481
Some interesting reading here
------------------------------------------------
Brexit loophole? MPs must still vote in order for Britain to leave the EU, say top lawyers
'MPs will have to do their duty to vote according to conscience and vote for what's best for Britain'
Parliament must still vote on a bill to allow the UK to leave the European Union, leading lawyers have said.
Geoffrey Robertson QC, who founded the Doughty Street Chambers, said the act which set up the referendum said "nothing" about its impact, meaning it was "purely advisory".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four ways that the UK could avoid a Brexit
IGNORING THE REFERENDUM
INVOKING A SCOTTISH VETO
HOLDING ANOTHER ELECTION
HOLDING A SECOND REFERENDUM
------------------------------------------------
Brexit loophole? MPs must still vote in order for Britain to leave the EU, say top lawyers
'MPs will have to do their duty to vote according to conscience and vote for what's best for Britain'
Parliament must still vote on a bill to allow the UK to leave the European Union, leading lawyers have said.
Geoffrey Robertson QC, who founded the Doughty Street Chambers, said the act which set up the referendum said "nothing" about its impact, meaning it was "purely advisory".
Code:
You don't have permission to view the code content. Log in or register now.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four ways that the UK could avoid a Brexit
IGNORING THE REFERENDUM
INVOKING A SCOTTISH VETO
HOLDING ANOTHER ELECTION
HOLDING A SECOND REFERENDUM
Code:
You don't have permission to view the code content. Log in or register now.- Status
Similar threads
