[Update] The UK votes to leave the EU

[techguyone]

It'll be good if other nations also vote to exit, it'll quickly kill the idea that anyone can be 'punished' for leaving if others do it too.

Here's hoping.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I got this very wrong and apologise to those whose opinions I doubted. Everyone underestimated the extent to which the anti-establishment feelings of many would drive the way they voted.

The vote has set in motion a chain of events that I'm far from convinced many understood. I certainly didn't.

Let's hope that the divisions inside the UK can be healed somewhat, they are stark, and that a fair and reasonable agreement with the EU can be reached expediently when the negotiations come.

This isn't the last the UK has seen of referenda this decade.

So you doubted opinions of leavers, an now you're telling them they don't understand what leave means? Interesting views you have.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I got this very wrong and apologise to those whose opinions I doubted. Everyone underestimated the extent to which the anti-establishment feelings of many would drive the way they voted.

The vote has set in motion a chain of events that I'm far from convinced many understood. I certainly didn't.

Let's hope that the divisions inside the UK can be healed somewhat, they are stark, and that a fair and reasonable agreement with the EU can be reached expediently when the negotiations come.

This isn't the last the UK has seen of referenda this decade.

apparently the whining jock is going to make a speech about a Scottish referendum again

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Reform to try and keep us in is not going to happen. If the EU did that for us others would jump on the bandwagon.

Why would they have to apply special rules for us? Why don't they change things for everybody? Realistically there are no measures that could be introduced anyway those would fully resolve the issues. It would be just tinkering around the edges and people would find a way around any new restrictions.

[papa smurf]

[QUOTE=ntluser;35845074]I don't really understand why David Cameron chose to step down because the EU Referendum result not only gave him the greatest weapon for reforming the EU but also provided a beacon of hope for all other dissatisfied voters in the other countries within the EU.

The Leave voters don't want to remain in the EU as presently organised but that is not to say that changes cannot be made, though they would have to lead to a much better deal than the one offered which was pathetic.

All EU countries could decide to give up completely any idea of forming a European Superstate and formally put that into EU rules.

They could legislate to make the national courts the supreme courts in any EU country.

They could still have freedom of movement within the EU but within limits specified by national governments, such limits to include the expulsion of criminals and other undesirable elements and limits on numbers.

We could go back to being a trading nation and the EU could dismantle some of the more expensive parts of its infrastructure.

Cameron would not have to activate Article 50 immediately. He could propose changes to make the EU more acceptable and less meddlesome.

He could point out that there is anti-EU sentiment throughout the EU and that if nothing is done the UK Brexit might be an example other countries want to follow. Better to have a really reformed EU than one that decomposes altogether.

And while he is doing all this he can dangle Article 50 over them like the Sword Of Damocles, something he could be doing for years.

In this way we could still remain in the EU complete with our sovereignty, continued access to the EU market with a lot less EU interference and expense. We could also keep the UK united with no need for independence votes.

All we have to do is delay our use of Article 50 so long as the EU reforms and is working for us and all other countries in the EU.

Only time will tell what the future holds. I just hope it holds the use of a lot of common sense.[/QUOTE]




it was never his mission to change the EU

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by RBMark

So you doubted opinions of leavers, an now you're telling them they don't understand what leave means? Interesting views you have.

No-one understands what leave means right now.

Pointing out that people don't know what it means is neither interesting or controversial.

That no clear vision of what it would mean has been presented hasn't helped.

EDIT: I would also point out that you don't know how I voted.

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Why would they have to apply special rules for us? Why don't they change things for everybody? Realistically there are no measures that could be introduced anyway those would fully resolve the issues. It would be just tinkering around the edges and people would find a way around any new restrictions.

The problem was that David Cameron was arguing just for us which made us appear selfish.

He would have got more support if he had argued for equal rights for all EU states.

All his successor has to do now is see what happens in the upcoming French and German elections. My guess is that there will be a massive swing to anti-EU parties.

Another thing to consider are the MEP elections when again there could be a massive swing to anti-EU parties following the Brexit.

It's a shame that the EU management is so inflexible because if they don't adapt and change they will be like the dinosaurs..extinct!

The next two years are going to be very interesting.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by RBMark

Not forgetting labour voters in the majority voted LEAVE!

I'm not aware of any evidence of this. These numbers will become clearer later.

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

Why would they have to apply special rules for us? Why don't they change things for everybody?

Treaty change requires unanimity. That isn't going to happen.

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

[QUOTE=ntluser;35845074]I don't really understand why David Cameron chose to step down because the EU Referendum result not only gave him the greatest weapon for reforming the EU but also provided a beacon of hope for all other dissatisfied voters in the other countries within the EU.

The Leave voters don't want to remain in the EU as presently organised but that is not to say that changes cannot be made, though they would have to lead to a much better deal than the one offered which was pathetic.

All EU countries could decide to give up completely any idea of forming a European Superstate and formally put that into EU rules.

They could legislate to make the national courts the supreme courts in any EU country.

They could still have freedom of movement within the EU but within limits specified by national governments, such limits to include the expulsion of criminals and other undesirable elements and limits on numbers.

We could go back to being a trading nation and the EU could dismantle some of the more expensive parts of its infrastructure.

Cameron would not have to activate Article 50 immediately. He could propose changes to make the EU more acceptable and less meddlesome.

He could point out that there is anti-EU sentiment throughout the EU and that if nothing is done the UK Brexit might be an example other countries want to follow. Better to have a really reformed EU than one that decomposes altogether.

And while he is doing all this he can dangle Article 50 over them like the Sword Of Damocles, something he could be doing for years.

In this way we could still remain in the EU complete with our sovereignty, continued access to the EU market with a lot less EU interference and expense. We could also keep the UK united with no need for independence votes.

All we have to do is delay our use of Article 50 so long as the EU reforms and is working for us and all other countries in the EU.

Only time will tell what the future holds. I just hope it holds the use of a lot of common sense.

it was never his mission to change the EU[/QUOTE]

You may well be right. If that was the case it's definitely proper that he should resign especially as a lot of things he said in the EU campaign were lies.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

We can't disengage from the EU as totally as some would like, IMO. We're likely to go for some sort of association status.

If that deal includes free movement of people and paying into the EU, which it will do......then what was the point?

---------- Post added at 11:16 ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 ----------

Originally Posted by Big Brian

The single market is still there and we will likely be a part of it if we want to. But as I said earlier the end of the EU is inevitable and the problem will not arise if that happens.

Did your IQ suddenly drop sharply.

If we want access to the single market we will have to accept free movement of people, pay into Europe and accept all the rules regulations and bureaucracy.

So what was the point.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Pierre

If that deal includes free movement of people and paying into the EU, which it will do......then what was the point?

Taking back control.

EDIT: I would strongly recommend listening to Michael Gove and Boris Johnson. Gove just pointedly discussed leaving the political structures of the EU. Boris went to pains to discuss our role in Europe. Both are discussing being open with the world.

You weren't thinking we were going to revert to WTO rules, or get a Swiss deal without agreeing to the terms and conditions, were you? That is not a likely course of events.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Taking back control.

One of the biggest, if not the biggest issue of the debate was control of our borders - free movement of people within the eurozone.

Unless the EU capitulate entirely, if we want access to the single market or some kind of associate status, I'm pretty sure that we would be required to agree to free movement of people.

So we won't be taking control of our borders that way.

[ntluser]

The interesting question is who will pick up the tab for the UK's missing contribution?

If the EU are determined to keep us out at all costs,EU contributions will have to be increased or spending will have to be reduced or both.

Originally Posted by Pierre

If we want access to the single market we will have to accept free movement of people, pay into Europe and accept all the rules regulations and bureaucracy.

So what was the point.

No we won't ,the US trades with the single market and they don't have to accept free movement or pay into Europe

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

One of the biggest, if not the biggest issue of the debate was control of our borders - free movement of people within the eurozone.

Unless the EU capitulate entirely, if we want access to the single market or some kind of associate status, I'm pretty sure that we would be required to agree to free movement of people.

So we won't be taking control of our borders that way.

Why would we need to agree to that? We are a big market for them. We should be in the driving seat with negotiations.