What happens if Britain exits Europe

[NickP]

Q, my answer wasn't to you it was to lindal, although maybe it still applies until we are presented with the facts, who knows what we will do?

[idun]

What facts, who exactly is going to give us the real facts and no matter what happens those slippery eels of politians will probably twist anything that happens anyway.......... no matter the vote.

The ignorant or the well educated will not, as far as I can see be in too different a situation where this is concerned. The big difference being that the educated will, after it has all turned to la bouse, be able to justify their vote, by stating those 'facts' that they based their decision on.

We are mid channel with our affairs and to safeguard income would move to another EU country, because for all I hate the EU in it's current form, we cannot live on fresh air when all is said and done and I am a very practical person.

[andyh4]

Quote Quillan

I assume, dangerous I know, that Andy was making is that it pays to validate these things independently because most newspapers have some form of political and EU bias, one way or the other.

Unquote

Actually Q my experience is very much the same as you have found with the Greenland example - not political bias, but information given out that is just plain wrong. All papers and even the BBC were guilty in misreporting "facts" about incidents that I and my colleagues had been personally involved in. The one exception was the FT, which would have had no interest in such incidents and did not report at all.

So given that the populace are going to get their information from the media, I can see many being misled.

And why should they go out and check the facts - after all it is in a newspaper or in a news broadcast or documentary. In that respect, if I gave the impression that Minnie should have checked the facts before posting, then I sincerely apologise, as I say people can be expected to believe facts given in the media. Sadly the are frequently lacking in their research.

[Rabbie]

[quote user="idun"]What facts, who exactly is going to give us the real facts and no matter what happens those slippery eels of politians will probably twist anything that happens anyway.......... no matter the vote.[/quote]

In the final analysis we will have to use our common sense to decide who we believe is telling us the truth and base our decision on that. After all that is what we expect jury members to do.
[quote user="idun"]
The ignorant or the well educated will not, as far as I can see be in too different a situation where this is concerned. The big difference being that the educated will, after it has all turned to la bouse, be able to justify their vote, by stating those 'facts' that they based their decision on.

We are mid channel with our affairs and to safeguard income would move to another EU country, because for all I hate the EU in it's current form, we cannot live on fresh air when all is said and done and I am a very practical person.


[/quote]On a personal level my decision will be based on what I believe to be in the best interests of the UK but also what I believe to be the best interests of myself and my family. Hopefully there will be no conflict between these. Hopefully everyone else will also vote along these lines even if they see a different result as being the correct thing.  Regardless of the final result I hope everybody will respect the democratic verdict and live with the consequences. I would regard it as being hypocritical if people resident in the UK leave the UK because the vote goes the way they voted. People must be prepared to live with the consequences of their decision and not run away from it.

 

 

[idun]

Remember Rabbie, every last bit of income we have is from France at the moment, so our situation is rather different to most others on this board. As I said, we cannot live on fresh air and would have to live where is best for us.

And hypocritical, well, we voted against EEC in the early 70's, both of us and yet we still moved to France when people in general were not making such a move. And even then our circumstances were not as other people's either.

[Quillan]

The problem I see is exactly what Idun and others have said in that politicians lie. Let’s be honest for a minute, the reason Cameron is allowing the referendum is because firstly he feared that Ukip would win a lot of seats on the back of the UK leaving Europe, the SNP doing a deal with Labour and his own anti EU back benchers. He then went on to say that he would re-negotiate our agreement with the EU and in particular the right to live and work in another EU country. Well I for one knew that would not work as I suspect others thought as well as this is at the core of the Lisbon treaty and it cannot be changed. Therefore he did not stand a chance and knew before he said that, that he would never get any treaty changes because these would have to be agreed by all member states and not by a majority.

The thing is that like the Scottish referendum he has promised the world and when we look at what he promised Scotland if they voted to stay as part of the Union he has yet to fulfil his promises. Even Gordon Brown lied because, if you remember' he said he would ensure Cameron kept his promises and that hasn't happened either. Whilst I admit I didn't want to see Scotland leave the union I think the way the government has renegaded on their promises is disgraceful and I feel sorry for the Scots.

One of the biggest concerns for the average person in the UK is immigration and the media has a habit of joining all the different types in to one. There are only two types, those that come from outside the EU to work and the other is those seeking asylum. Those moving within the EU are called migrants.

Farrage went on about Romanians arriving in the UK and drawing benefits, well I read that according to ONS only about 2,000 of them claim social benefits i.e. unemployment. What we are really taking about, which is part of the Lisbon treaty, is that if you move to another EU state and become resident you are entitled to the same benefits as those that were born there. In the case of the UK that is tax credits, child allowance etc but then that also works for Brits moving and becoming resident in France (because that’s where most of us here are). If I had children I would be entitled to French child benefits if I met the same criteria as a French person.

Because we have so many different types of assistive benefits, like tax credits etc for those that work but receive a low wage EU migrants to the UK are entitled to the same and that’s the rub because the UK is the only country in the EU that gives these sort of tax credits. This is part of the Lisbon treaty and cannot be changed. In Dec 2014 the number of migrants from the EU was less than half the total migrants into the UK. I would think that the obvious way to deal with immigration is along the lines dare I say that Ukip suggested in that all immigrants/migrants to the UK must have a job to come to or have something to offer the UK. If you did that then you would not be differentiating between EU and none EU immigrants/migrants and it may be a way round the Lisbon treaty.

In some ways I sort of agree with what both Andy and Nick say in their different ways in that there are some scare stories going around. One classic is that if we left the EU nearly half the nurses would leave the UK well that’s a load of rubbish. Accord the RCN (and not certain newspapers), and the RCN should know, is that out of the approxomate 800,000 nurses only 42,000 of them are foreign i.e. not UK citizens which sort of b*ggers up certain statements made in certain newspapers. Most of them also come from outside the EU and have work permits. So if the UK left the EU the NHS would not grind to a halt as some pro EU supporters have alleged. Like I said there are a lot of lies on both sides and without doing your own research you could base your voting decision on false data.

What I would say is that ONS information at source is OK but I wouldn't believe information in newspapers that is said to have come from ONS because they quote statistics from ONS in a way to support their argument and whilst they might be right they do not compare them with the rest of the ONS data which often paints a different picture because you have to look at them in context. Here is an example, there are 2.7m Muslims living in the UK but when you look at the percentage of the population they only account for only 5% with Christians being 59% and atheists being 25% so the Muslims are not taking over the UK because the newspapers would have us think that every brown person in the UK must be a Muslim which is rubbish.

 

[EuroTrash]

"like tax credits etc for those that work but receive a low wage EU migrants to the UK are entitled to the same and that’s the rub because the UK is the only country in the EU that gives these sort of tax credits. "

But isn't this very similar to RSA in France? Which you get automatically based on your tax return if you work full time and your income is below the threshold for your domestic situation.

As regards the Brexit, speculation is about as useful as the armies of economists who make a rich living from producing economic forecasts and projections, and constantly revising them. Honestly what's the point. It's unknown territory, it's things nobody has full control over, there are so many chaos factors involved. If there is an exit, how good/damaging it is for the UK will depend on the terms that are negotiated, which will depend on the political and economic situation at the time, which is way beyond the abllity of any economist to predict with any confidence or accuracy, as is proven over and over again.

I'm out of touch with the UK but many years ago I used to work in the education sector, and I was shocked at the cost to the ratepayers of providing ESOL lessons to the constant influx of immigrants. It wouldn't have been so bad if they actually wanted to learn English and benefited from the classes, but the council equipped several outreach teaching centres and paid a staff of basic skills tutors and counsellors, and on top of that they paid admin staff to keep attendance records and chase up the large proportion of students who never turned up to their classes.

I don't expect politicians to keep promises, or tell the truth unless by accident or if it happens to suit their purposes. But in my usual naive way, I'm assuming that anybody who pays their way in the country they live in, will be allowed to continue to do so. So I'm not losing sleep.

[nomoss]

An analysis of the UK's position in the EU which I find most interesting suggests that, given the wildly varying results of the many studies of the economic effects of leaving or staying, it is possible that the balance of advantage from staying in, or leaving, the EU is comparatively small.

Considering this, the decision to stay or leave should perhaps not be based on possible costs and benefits, but on the basis of the form of governance in the EU and the way that this, and its inter-relation with the economy, is likely to develop. Personally I think that it is deteriorating.

Cameron's promise of a referendum, like so many ideas which seem to flit into his head, seemed to be a knee-jerk reaction to a situation during an election campaign, which he subsequently delayed by saying it would be held after he had negotiated treaty changes.

He is extremely unlikely to secure any meaningful change in the UK's relationship with the EU, but I'm sure he will try to make any minor concessions he obtains seem significant.

We can't vote in any UK referendum, but I don't think the UK's leaving or joining will make much difference to us, except that leaving would probably eventually result in a stronger pound, making our UK savings and pensions worth more.

We lived and worked in European countries well before they became full EU members, and their accession did not result in any net improvements for us. In fact it made life more complicated in many ways, and certainly our business expenses went up with the increasing costs of bureaucracy which crept in.

[EuroTrash]

"An analysis of the UK's position in the EU suggests that, given the wildly varying results of the many studies of the economic effects of leaving or staying, it is possible that the balance of advantage from staying in, or leaving, the EU is comparatively small."

Classic ! So it's possible it might not make a lot of difference either way, but that's not to say that it's impossible that it would make a stonking great difference either one way or the other. Well done that analyst, you can't hedge your bets much better than that.

[Rabbie]

[quote user="idun"]Remember Rabbie, every last bit of income we have is from France at the moment, so our situation is rather different to most others on this board. As I said, we cannot live on fresh air and would have to live where is best for us.[/quote] I agree that your situation is different from the majority of board users. That is why I am confused as to why you would vote in a way the might be injurious to you.
[quote user="idun"]
And hypocritical, well, we voted against EEC in the early 70's, both of us and yet we still moved to France when people in general were not making such a move. And even then our circumstances were not as other people's either.
[/quote]Apologies for using the word "hypocritical". It was not the correct word but it was written fairly late in the evening and I should have used "idiosyncratic" which I think sums up your position.

To return to the original question. "What will happen if Britain leaves the EU". Well nobody can give a definitive answer since we don't know how the EU will react to our leaving. We will also not know what would have happened if we had stayed in. It is certain things would change in either case  because we live in a changing world. By leaving we would lose influence obviously with the EU but also, it has been hinted by Obama, with the USA. My gut feeling is that domestically it will not make as much difference either good or bad as both sides of the argument imply. I remember working in London before we joined the EEC and the UK then was no haven of peace and prosperity. There is no magic solution to all the economic problems and I am not convinced that further austerity is the solution. It all very well to say we are all in it together and then sink taxes for the high earners when the low earners are struggling to find houses they can afford.

[nomoss]

[quote user="EuroTrash"]"An analysis of the UK's position in the EU suggests that, given the wildly varying results of the many studies of the economic effects of leaving or staying, it is possible that the balance of advantage from staying in, or leaving, the EU is comparatively small."

Classic ! So it's possible it might not make a lot of difference either way, but that's not to say that it's impossible that it would make a stonking great difference either one way or the other. Well done that analyst, you can't hedge your bets much better than that.[/quote]

True. But I think the possibility is well worth consideration.

The sources of all the studies are quoted, but not having the time or the expertise to read and analyse them, and not believing any of the media, my own conclusion, based on my own experience, is that it won't make any economic difference either way.

However, I do think that the European Project is a nightmare.

Brits were conned in 1975 into voting to stay in a "Common Market", a phrase used by the establishment to be more palatable to the electorate than any suggestion of Union.

What was never mentioned, as far as I recall, was that they were not actually voting for a set of rules, but an evolving process established by the Treaty of Rome, in which the founding members declared that they were "determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".

[EuroTrash]

Part of the reason it's a nightmare is because of the 'crash' - which again nobody expected, though a few had predicted it. That wasn't meant to happen and Europe hasn't coped with it well. It's history now, but history would have been very different if that hadn't come along and upset everybody's toys.

Which is why the whole predictions game is so futile. Especially since, as you say, joe public is not in a position to fully understand what's happened in the past, even less what's happening now, and therefore even if you took out the chaos factor, isn't in a position to predict the future.

[woolybanana]

If Greece pulls out of the euro and/or the EU then the whole project will at best stall long term, at worst, fall apart, so let's not be so certain of ever closer unity.

[nomoss]

[quote user="woolybanana"]If Greece pulls out of the euro and/or the EU then the whole project will at best stall long term, at worst, fall apart, so let's not be so certain of ever closer unity.[/quote]

In which case, I fear many members would continue to strive to rescuscitate the remains rather than admit failure.

[Quillan]

[quote user="nomoss"]
Brits were conned in 1975 into voting to stay in a "Common Market", a phrase used by the establishment to be more palatable to the electorate than any suggestion of Union.

What was never mentioned, as far as I recall, was that they were not actually voting for a set of rules, but an evolving process established by the Treaty of Rome, in which the founding members declared that they were "determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".

[/quote]

Well the treaty of Rome which was signed in 1957 and started in 1958 was called the "Treaty establishing the European Economic Community". It was only until it was superceded by the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 was the word "Economic" removed. Therefore you should have known in 1975 what you were voting on. One has to assume that people did because if you didn't you would not have bothered to vote.

[woolybanana]

Yes, but many would not want to continue with the present arrangements so something very different would emerge.

[nomoss]

[quote user="Quillan"]

[quote user="nomoss"]

Brits were conned in 1975 into voting to stay in a "Common Market", a phrase used by the establishment to be more palatable to the electorate than any suggestion of Union.

What was never mentioned, as far as I recall, was that they were not actually voting for a set of rules, but an evolving process established by the Treaty of Rome, in which the founding members declared that they were "determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".

[/quote]

Well the treaty of Rome which was signed in 1957 and started in 1958 was called the "Treaty establishing the European Economic Community". It was only until it was superceded by the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 was the word "Economic" removed. Therefore you should have known in 1975 what you were voting on. One has to assume that people did because if you didn't you would not have bothered to vote.

[/quote]

Treaty of Rome opening statement, original text, source [url]http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_eec_en.htm[/url]

The EEC Treaty, signed in Rome in 1957, brings together France, Germany,

Italy and the Benelux countries in a community whose aim is to achieve

integration via trade with a view to economic expansion. After the

Treaty of Maastricht the EEC became the European Community, reflecting

the determination of the Member States to expand the Community's powers

to non-economic domains.

This suggests to me that Maastricht simply reinforced and re-stated the members' existing determination for even closer union, not that it was a new concept.

But, unfortunately, information was not easily available on the Internet in 1975.

I didn't vote in 1975 as I didn't live in the UK and was only briefly there for a visit.

However, I don't recall any hint of "closer union", and my statement that people were conned was made because of the enormous number of people I have come across, on this forum included, who thought it was purely a trading agreement. That is certainly the impression I was given at the time.

Presumably they "should have known" what they were voting on, although I don't follow any logic in your statement that the name of the Treaty in 1975 meant that voters should have understood it was eventually intended to be a monetary and political union. In the main they knew only what they were told by the media.

[Rabbie]

Winston Churchill was one of those who thought the best prospect of European peace lay in creating a "United States of Europe" so the idea of European Union was already in the open.

[woolybanana]

But, he was, I think, using the US as a model; there are many significant differences between the different States as well as checks and balances which do stop the Washington executive running away with itself. These do not exist in the over-centralized and conformist Europe which wants a single state of Europe, not the same at all.

[nomoss]

[quote user="Rabbie"]Winston Churchill was one of those who thought the best prospect of European peace lay in creating a "United States of Europe" so the idea of European Union was already in the open.[/quote]

This is often suggested to show that Churchill supported the idea of the UK as part of a federal Europe.

In a speech in Zurich in 1946 he said "We must build a United States of Europe ................ The first step in the re-creation of the European family must be a partnership between France and Germay"

But in the same speech he also said "Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, (and) mighty America ................. must be friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine". Which does not suggest he envisaged Britain as becoming part of any European association.

[Quillan]

[quote user="nomoss"][quote user="Rabbie"]Winston Churchill was one of those who thought the best prospect of European peace lay in creating a "United States of Europe" so the idea of European Union was already in the open.[/quote]

This is often suggested to show that Churchill supported the idea of the UK as part of a federal Europe.

In a speech in Zurich in 1946 he said "We must build a United States of Europe ................ The first step in the re-creation of the European family must be a partnership between France and Germay"

But in the same speech he also said "Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, (and) mighty America ................. must be friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine". Which does not suggest he envisaged Britain as becoming part of any European association.
[/quote]

Well what I read in his books of WW2 is that he wanted a European United Nations and didn't see much point in having one based in the US. He also sponsored what we now call ECHR and was one of its architects.

Wooly - the part about the American model, of which there are some problems, that 'appeals' to the EU is that one state helps another, taxes are collected nationaly and expenditure is controlled nationally. Without it states like New York and California who are totally bankrupt compared to Greece, Italy and Spain combined could not run at the deficit they do. But there are other federations, for that is what we are talking about, like Canada, Australia, India etc.

[lindal1000]

It's worth remembering than most people who will be eligible to vote have no memory or interest in Winston Churchill, other than as a historical figure, or were born at the time of the first referendum, so there is no sense among that group of 'feeling conned'.

[Quillan]

[quote user="lindal1000"]It's worth remembering than most people who will be eligible to vote have no memory or interest in Winston Churchill, other than as a historical figure, or were born at the time of the first referendum, so there is no sense among that group of 'feeling conned'.[/quote]

I alays thought it rather funny when Ukip, the DM and the DE (especially readers comments whch are always amusing) rolled out Churchill saying he would be turning in his grave as this was not what he foght for when in many ways he way the architect of it and of the EHCR.

[ebaynut]

Q wrote,

 

Here is an example, there are 2.7m Muslims living in

the UK but when you look at the

percentage of the population they only account for only 5% with Christians being

59% and atheists being 25% so the Muslims are not taking over the UK because the

newspapers would have us think that every brown person in the UK must be a

Muslim which is rubbish.

 

I would humbly suggest that it is 2.7m too many,

or if you prefer 5% of the population too many, (that is just the ones the

government know about or are prepared to admit too) especially if  this  is how they behave

in their host country. Click if you want to see the true face of Islam and what

is happening to parts of the UK where they gather, its only four minutes long,

says more than words can ever say.

[Quillan]

[quote user="ebaynut"]

Q wrote,

 

Here is an example, there are 2.7m Muslims living in the UK but when you look at the percentage of the population they only account for only 5% with Christians being 59% and atheists being 25% so the Muslims are not taking over the UK because the newspapers would have us think that every brown person in the UK must be a Muslim which is rubbish.

 

I would humbly suggest that it is 2.7m too many, or if you prefer 5% of the population too many, (that is just the ones the government know about or are prepared to admit too) especially if  this  is how they behave in their host country. Click if you want to see the true face of Islam and what is happening to parts of the UK where they gather, its only four minutes long, says more than words can ever say.

[/quote]

So all the Muslims in the UK turned up in Luton for this demostration then? I have seen Brits behave far worse in other countries not that I think these peoples behavior is bad just making a point using free speech something Winston Churchill wanted to defend as did my uncles and great uncles who faught (and died for) in WW2.