Will we leave the EU?

[Nabby81]

So if there is no Brexit whats to stop the EU saying well you decided to stay as its in your best interests so now we expect you to fully integrate ie join Euro

[winkie]

2 minutes ago, Nabby81 said:

So if there is no Brexit whats to stop the EU saying well you decided to stay as its in your best interests so now we expect you to fully integrate ie join Euro

We will not stay as the EU is at the moment, the project is not what the people wanted.....will be stepping back a treaty or two, the ones that none of us voted for and were signed without so much of a mention of more than two minutes in the MSM.....not discussed openly and transparently and ratified very much under hand at the time.

[Futuroid]

3 minutes ago, Nabby81 said:

So if there is no Brexit whats to stop the EU saying well you decided to stay as its in your best interests so now we expect you to fully integrate ie join Euro

Common sense. And the fact that the Euro is already looking like a busted flush?

I can't see us continuing our relationship with the EU on the terms we had before never mind embarking on deeper integration. I think they will be highly sceptical of any British EU-turn. We'll probably end up with an EEA type arrangement, all of the "problems" of EU membership with few of the benefits. 

[XswampyX]

43 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

few of the benefits.

Hahahhahahahahah! Delusional.

[Sheeple Splinter]

6 hours ago, SarahBell said:

https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-leave-remain-52-48-per-cent-voter-turnout-electoral-register-7399226


So who isn't on the electoral roll and why not? 

How come the article didn't flag that the event wasn't publicised very well; I mean if those people that did not vote had only known about it...

[XswampyX]

18 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

How come the article didn't flag that the event wasn't publicised very well; I mean if those people that did not vote had only known about it...

3 month old babies can't read. Think of the children! 

[Bruce Banner]

3 hours ago, Nabby81 said:

So if there is no Brexit whats to stop the EU saying well you decided to stay as its in your best interests so now we expect you to fully integrate ie join Euro

It has to be said that if we had been in the Euro the UK house price bubble would have burst, along with all the others.

[Errol]

23 hours ago, WageWar said:

http://www.thelocal.se/20161105/farage-tells-swedes-he-will-return-with-a-pitchfork

Farage is back in the news today making violent threats if he doesn't get his way. I remember just a few years ago it was radical muslims who were making threats like this.

They weren't threats - he was just stating the obvious. There will be people in the streets if the referedum result is not carried out. 

Farage just being honest.

[Snagger]

23 hours ago, SarahBell said:

https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-leave-remain-52-48-per-cent-voter-turnout-electoral-register-7399226


So who isn't on the electoral roll and why not? 

That add up to 64M, so they must be including <18s and non UK citizens?

[thecrashingisles]

20 hours ago, Nabby81 said:

So if there is no Brexit whats to stop the EU saying well you decided to stay as its in your best interests so now we expect you to fully integrate ie join Euro

What's to stop them is that we have a permanent opt-out in the treaty.  Sadly we're now planning to withdraw from that treaty so if we go ahead with Brexit, our opt-out would also go.

[cica]

20 hours ago, Nabby81 said:

So if there is no Brexit whats to stop the EU saying well you decided to stay as its in your best interests so now we expect you to fully integrate ie join Euro

Cameron supposedly got this deal from Tusk before the Brexit the vote:

Quote

It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union.

 

Edited November 7, 2016 by cica

[thecrashingisles]

12 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

Ahh. A cast-iron, rock solid, immutable pledge for evermore (and a day). That's okay then.

No, it's a banal restatement of what we already have.  Opt-outs from the Euro and Schengen, and no-one can force us to sign a new treaty which gives anything more away.

[thecrashingisles]

23 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

It only requires an europhilic Blair-like creature and an equal disdain for the will of the people to commit us to further integration that is only ever meant to be one way in its passage of travel towards "ever closer union", even if it takes longer for some countries than others.

Firstly, such a creature would have to be elected by the British people first, and secondly, you probably have Blair to thank for Brexit.  He didn't take us into the Euro, and he botched up the EU expansion by allowing free movement from day one in contrast to France and Germany and sowed the seeds of the resentment that led to Leave winning.

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

What's to stop them is that we have a permanent opt-out in the treaty.  Sadly we're now planning to withdraw from that treaty so if we go ahead with Brexit, our opt-out would also go.

The opt-out means we're already at a fundamental difference with an EU hell-bent in going the opposite direction. How long-term sustainable is that?

[thecrashingisles]

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

The opt-out means we're already at a fundamental difference with an EU hell-bent in going the opposite direction. How long-term sustainable is that?

Denmark also has an opt-out and Sweden has no current plans to join.  Eventually there will probably a formalised different status for non-Eurozone members of the EU.  We should have held out for that.

[Riedquat]

1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

No, it's a banal restatement of what we already have.  Opt-outs from the Euro and Schengen, and no-one can force us to sign a new treaty which gives anything more away.

That's talking of precautions and opt-outs that shouldn't have ever come close to being needed. What more evidence do you need that the EU has gone far too far and it fundamentally rotten at its core?

[Riedquat]

3 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Denmark also has an opt-out and Sweden has no current plans to join.  Eventually there will probably a formalised different status for non-Eurozone members of the EU.  We should have held out for that.

Signs of it splitting up then. Again, it should never have needed to come to this, and should be getting un-done with all haste, moving back to what the EU really should be. Instead it wants to keep pushing in the opposite direction, and will tear itself apart in doing so.

[kzb]

1 hour ago, Snagger said:

That add up to 64M, so they must be including <18s and non UK citizens?

Under 18's are about 20% of population.  Still leaves 8% unaccounted for -prisoners and people who can't be arsed probably.

It's completely disingenuous to include persons not entitled to vote on that pie chart.  I don't want my future decided by 8-year olds!

[Guest TheBlueCat]

All this talk of opt outs is BS. We supposedly had an opt out from parts of the social chapter and yet the ECJ chose to ignore that and impose the exact wording of the treaties instead. If it's not written into the treaty, it's not an opt out, simple as that.

[Konig]

Forgive me my past sins, I have now seen the light and have been converted!

We should trigger article 50 straight away and let May personally decide what should or should not be the whole future basis of the UK's relationship with the EU and therefore, in may respects, with the rest of the world, completely and absolutely unfettered by Parliament at all times.

She should then go and demand that from the EU, with the threat of a boycott of fizzy Italian wine.

If the EU will not agree, or possibly offers Her any compromise that She personally likes the sound of, then whatever She chooses will be the terms on which the UK will leave.

For She has total and divine right to decide what Brexit means, and can only be judged in the 2020 General Election, when it will all be too late and we have to accept whatever She has decided.

Just thinking about it makes me feel so..... democratically cleansed

[Konig]

On a slightly less sarcastic note, and in response to the title question of this thread, the answer could possibly be 'yes and no'.

For example, we trigger article 50 and start negotiations, 2 years starts to loom and its clear no grand deal can be done, so there is an extension on EU membership, with all the terms the same as now (single market access, we pay in, FOM, etc.) and this goes on and on while we try and negotiate a 'final' exit - 5, 10, 15 years etc.

Incidentally, the scenario above could play out as an 'interim' arrangement for the same length of time but with us actually leaving the EU after the 2 years.  So all the above but no seat at the table, meaning we would have left, but not really     

[DTMark]

7 minutes ago, Konig said:

On a slightly less sarcastic note, and in response to the title question of this thread, the answer could possibly be 'yes and no'.

For example, we trigger article 50 and start negotiations, 2 years starts to loom and its clear no grand deal can be done, so there is an extension on EU membership, with all the terms the same as now (single market access, we pay in, FOM, etc.) and this goes on and on while we try and negotiate a 'final' exit - 5, 10, 15 years etc.

Incidentally, the scenario above could play out as an 'interim' arrangement for the same length of time but with us actually leaving the EU after the 2 years.  So all the above but no seat at the table, meaning we would have left, but not really     

The remainers in Parliament want there to be a debate about what terms we will accept and therefore where the "line in the sand" shall be drawn as regards whether we leave the EU or not, the result of that latter stance being "ignore the results of the Referendum".

To set out publicly where that line is would be suicidal for our negotiating position.

The EU have already said "No debate until Article 50 triggered".

And the country voted to leave. Not "leave if x,y and z". Just "leave".

So the remainers simply cannot have what they want and are behaving a bit like children asking Daddy, because Mummy said "No".

Edited November 7, 2016 by DTMark

[Futuroid]

1 hour ago, DTMark said:

To set out publicly where that line is would be suicidal for our negotiating position.

Who said it needs to be set out "publically"? Are you really suggesting that the aims of negotiation should be secret from Parliament? 

To not involve parliament would be suicidal for representative democracy.

[thecrashingisles]

2 hours ago, DTMark said:

The remainers in Parliament want there to be a debate about what terms we will accept and therefore where the "line in the sand" shall be drawn as regards whether we leave the EU or not, the result of that latter stance being "ignore the results of the Referendum".

To set out publicly where that line is would be suicidal for our negotiating position.

The EU have already said "No debate until Article 50 triggered".

And the country voted to leave. Not "leave if x,y and z". Just "leave".

So the remainers simply cannot have what they want and are behaving a bit like children asking Daddy, because Mummy said "No".

Your two positions are contradictory.  If you think we voted for just 'leave', not 'x, y and z', then we don't need a negotiating position.  Just do a hard Brexit and get on with it.  It's only if you think we should half leave that lines in the sand become relevant.

[the gardener]

To involve Parliament in this decision involves the murder of democracy.

Edited November 7, 2016 by the gardener