Brexit UK vote to leave Europe in historic referendum

[i'm spartacus]

We don't have to accept anything, but as a matter of interest, why don't you or Dave give us all an explanation of what is wrong with the Norway system. I'll look forward to reading that

If you look back on the posts in this debate you will find I already told you.

Try searching for "Fax democracy".

To save you the trouble of looking Norway accepts EU laws, pays into the EU, accepts free movement of Labour and even has open borders with the rest of the EU (no passport control unlike us).

Yet they have no say in the laws, rules and regulations that affect their relationship with the EU and the single market. No veto, no input, nothing.

Hence the term coined by one of their own Prime Ministers, "fax democracy". EU sends them a fax, they implement the laws.

So now I'd like to know why as a Leaver you want to be in a position where we have to accept EU laws, pay into the EU and accepts free movement of Labour. And have no say in those laws.

Seems a pretty stupid position to put yourself in to me!

From the outset, I didn't say I wanted to enter into a Norway type deal; what I asked was that you explain what was wrong with the Norway system.

It isn't as unattractive a deal as you paint it in reality.

As it seems that many concerns arose around EU migration, and under EEA rules, it is possible to impose restrictions on immigration whilst remaining in the European Economic Area.

Liechtenstein, an EEA member with less influence than the UK, uses clauses in the EEA agreement to restrict free movement. Article 112(1) of the EEA Agreement reads: ‘If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113.’ The restrictions used by Liechtenstein are shored up by Protocol 15 of the EEA agreement. This allows Liechtenstein to keep specific restrictions on the free movement of people.

Theoretically, we could use these rules to ensure that we only have migration from the EU by people who are not a burden on the state; ie with a definite job offer, and in a job that pays enough to take the worker outside of in work benefits.No right is absolute, and neither is freedom of movement within the EEA. What is more, EEA rules only apply to EFTA nations after they have assessed the relevant legislation and applied it according to their own interpretation of what freedom of movement means

Yes you have to pay into the system and comply with its rules except those relating to agriculture and fisheries. The laws you speak of only relate to rules around trade, and we are not subject to the primacy of EU law as we are now. Crucially, we are outside the EU's control in respect of negotiating trade deals with countries outside the EU, such as India or China. There is a process whereby new EU law is discussed and implemented or not, as the case may be. Should we choose the EEA, it would be bolstered by our presence, and we could enter that in a very short space of time

[Owd Codger]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a6HNXtdvVQ

NB: not suitable for children contains swearing

Only shows the level of mentality of many in our country today!

I blame the high level of alcoholism and drugs which now prevails in our society.

[nellywelly]

To imply that people who voted to leave the EU is a Racist is not only wrong, but only illustrates the nastiness that some people will go to when they have not got their own way in a democratic vote.

Wrong because those who did vote on the issue of immigration did so because of their concerns about the way our small country is getting over populated, the lack of Government to control it and the effect it will have on the country in the future with less jobs and more living on benefits, especially as people live longer.

The population is now 65 million compared with only 61 million of a short while ago and is expected to rise to 70 million within the next ten years in spite of the fact that there is a shortage of affordable housing, not enough Doctors and Dentists, the NHS unable to cope and £136 in debt, not enough schools and higher class sizes, more gridlock on the roads etc, etc.

Even many people of first generation immigrant origin voted to leave because of their concerns about the level of immigration affecting their established businesses as many of the immigrants coming in are also small business people and not all poor people as some seemed to think and led to believe they are.

And some should also face up to the fact that the leave vote and majority would have been even higher if the people of Scotland had not been misled by the SNP into the false belief that if Scotland voted to stay in, they would stand a better chance of getting Independence within the EU when in fact that will only happen by a Act of Parliament at Westminster and you can bet that the establishment in London and most of the Clan leaders in Scotland who are loyal to the Crown will do anything in their power to prevent the break up of the United Kingdom, especially with the amount of Oil and Gas revenue of Scotland contributing to our economy.

The race card was used to get people to vote leave, the main point used was the free movement of people and implied immigration would be controlled if we leave.The leave camp have no idea of how to control immigration with out harming the free trade agreement we have with the EU. Only one person has agreed we will have to pay costs of remaining to trade with the EU. The areas most effected by the influx of east european immigration have received little or no help from central government if money had been given and poor areas of UK helped perhaps these areas would have seen that free movement of people is not the worse thing to happen.I can only see there being less money now for these areas and a hate crime rise which will make matters far worse

[DaveO]

And some should also face up to the fact that the leave vote and majority would have been even higher if the people of Scotland had not been misled by the SNP ....

Well you ARE going to have to face up to the fact YOU were lied to by the leave campaign.

Given the Leave campaign lied left, right and centre from the word go would you care to make a prediction as how high the Remain majority would have been had they told the truth?

Likewise had Leave not played the race card and peddled the myth we are about to be overrun by foreigners? How much influence did that have? A load of nonsense you yourself have clearly swallowed hook, line and sinker by the way.

[DaveO]

We don't have to accept anything, but as a matter of interest, why don't you or Dave give us all an explanation of what is wrong with the Norway system. I'll look forward to reading that

If you look back on the posts in this debate you will find I already told you.

Try searching for "Fax democracy".

To save you the trouble of looking Norway accepts EU laws, pays into the EU, accepts free movement of Labour and even has open borders with the rest of the EU (no passport control unlike us).

Yet they have no say in the laws, rules and regulations that affect their relationship with the EU and the single market. No veto, no input, nothing.

Hence the term coined by one of their own Prime Ministers, "fax democracy". EU sends them a fax, they implement the laws.

So now I'd like to know why as a Leaver you want to be in a position where we have to accept EU laws, pay into the EU and accepts free movement of Labour. And have no say in those laws.

Seems a pretty stupid position to put yourself in to me!

From the outset, I didn't say I wanted to enter into a Norway type deal; what I asked was that you explain what was wrong with the Norway system.

It isn't as unattractive a deal as you paint it in reality.

As it seems that many concerns arose around EU migration, and under EEA rules, it is possible to impose restrictions on immigration whilst remaining in the European Economic Area.

Liechtenstein, an EEA member with less influence than the UK, uses clauses in the EEA agreement to restrict free movement. Article 112(1) of the EEA Agreement reads: ‘If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113.’ The restrictions used by Liechtenstein are shored up by Protocol 15 of the EEA agreement. This allows Liechtenstein to keep specific restrictions on the free movement of people.

Theoretically, we could use these rules to ensure that we only have migration from the EU by people who are not a burden on the state; ie with a definite job offer, and in a job that pays enough to take the worker outside of in work benefits.No right is absolute, and neither is freedom of movement within the EEA. What is more, EEA rules only apply to EFTA nations after they have assessed the relevant legislation and applied it according to their own interpretation of what freedom of movement means

Yes you have to pay into the system and comply with its rules except those relating to agriculture and fisheries. The laws you speak of only relate to rules around trade, and we are not subject to the primacy of EU law as we are now. Crucially, we are outside the EU's control in respect of negotiating trade deals with countries outside the EU, such as India or China. There is a process whereby new EU law is discussed and implemented or not, as the case may be. Should we choose the EEA, it would be bolstered by our presence, and we could enter that in a very short space of time

Well lets see what happens shall we? You are great at coming up with hypothetical scenarios which let's face it, is what the entire Leave campaign was based on.

It's just another re-hash of the "It'll be alright on the night" concept.

We are not Liechtenstein. Do they have a car industry? A massive service industry wanting access to the EU market? Or are they a tax haven (they have more registered companies than citizens).

You have made a huge leap that because a tiny landlocked country of 62 square miles in size with a population of 37,000 has some rather unique arrangements with the EU with nothing like our population or industry or our needs with respect to access to the single market, that we will get the same deal. No way!

You have also glossed over the important fact of Norway's situation which is no say in the rules.

Finance and services are already working out which bits and which jobs are off to the EU so they are within the Eu area and free to trade there without restriction. They are not waiting for any hypothetical deals.

Ironically without us having a say it looks like the TTIP is dead. Hidden under the Brexit fall out is the French PM killing it off and with no UK government championing it, it looks to be finished.

I bet we get a TTIP with the US though, with all the bad things.

[DaveO]

on the plus side, despite how much i despise Cameron he has had the last laugh, by leaving it to his replacement to enact article 50 they are making them commit political suicide.

front runner is Boris Johnson

No any more! As predicted his career is over. Some of the comments about his decision not to stand for Tory leader are classic.

Rob Ford, professor of political science at Manchester University, says of Johnson:

— (((Rob Ford))) (@robfordmancs)

June 30, 2016
Boris engineered the largest constitutional crisis in post-war history but won't even put his name forward to clear it up?

What. A. Prat.

Actor Ewan McGregor is none too impressed either..

— Ewan McGregor (@mcgregor_ewan)

June 30, 2016

@BorisJohnson You spineless c$&t You lead this ludicrous campaign to leave EU. Win, and now fuc& off to let someone else clear up your mess.

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. Now Gove has put his name in the ring as he thinks a Brexiter should stand.

This is the Michael Gove who said in the past (direct quotes):

“I don’t think I have got that exceptional level of ability required to do the job.”

“I don’t have what it takes.”

It will be Theresa May who will have to sort it out. Fat chance of that!

[fozzieskem]

Wow,so there goes Boris just wow,so that leaves who Gove?the man has the personality of a house plant to me the legitimacy of the leave vote is starting to crumble mainly as its starting to dawn on the front runners this country is going to lose massively by leaving.

As it stands there simply has to be 1 a general election and 2 a second referendum on the deal if it can be brokered.

This country is going to be a hell of a lot poorer by the end of this.

[TrueBlueWarrior]

To say people are racist if they voted leave is ridiculous in my opinion.

Is everything that is being said on this thread not hypothetical?

Also it sounds as if this country was going just great whilst in the EU, lets be honest it's a s***hole with so much wrong with it and probably will remain that way whether in or out of the EU!

I know my views are simplistic but I am no politician and don't pretend to be, for me they are all corrupt and p*** in the same pot, with the very odd exception.

[Wigan_forever1985]

It shows how much the leave lot had planned for after the vote - in short absolutely nothing!

now the rats are running from the ship they sprung the hole in!

The Leave fully expected to lose this vote hence the speech given by farage almost accepting defeat on the night.

Its a little akin to the way the lib dems used to go about the elections by promising loads of great things because they knew they'd never actually have to go through with any of it - but someone (fools) called the leave campaigns bluff!

This is as bad a move as labour voting in ed to p!ss david off no one wins out of it

[i'm spartacus]

If you look back on the posts in this debate you will find I already told you.

Try searching for "Fax democracy".

To save you the trouble of looking Norway accepts EU laws, pays into the EU, accepts free movement of Labour and even has open borders with the rest of the EU (no passport control unlike us).

Yet they have no say in the laws, rules and regulations that affect their relationship with the EU and the single market. No veto, no input, nothing.

Hence the term coined by one of their own Prime Ministers, "fax democracy". EU sends them a fax, they implement the laws.

So now I'd like to know why as a Leaver you want to be in a position where we have to accept EU laws, pay into the EU and accepts free movement of Labour. And have no say in those laws.

Seems a pretty stupid position to put yourself in to me!

From the outset, I didn't say I wanted to enter into a Norway type deal; what I asked was that you explain what was wrong with the Norway system.

It isn't as unattractive a deal as you paint it in reality.

As it seems that many concerns arose around EU migration, and under EEA rules, it is possible to impose restrictions on immigration whilst remaining in the European Economic Area.

Liechtenstein, an EEA member with less influence than the UK, uses clauses in the EEA agreement to restrict free movement. Article 112(1) of the EEA Agreement reads: ‘If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113.’ The restrictions used by Liechtenstein are shored up by Protocol 15 of the EEA agreement. This allows Liechtenstein to keep specific restrictions on the free movement of people.

Theoretically, we could use these rules to ensure that we only have migration from the EU by people who are not a burden on the state; ie with a definite job offer, and in a job that pays enough to take the worker outside of in work benefits.No right is absolute, and neither is freedom of movement within the EEA. What is more, EEA rules only apply to EFTA nations after they have assessed the relevant legislation and applied it according to their own interpretation of what freedom of movement means

Yes you have to pay into the system and comply with its rules except those relating to agriculture and fisheries. The laws you speak of only relate to rules around trade, and we are not subject to the primacy of EU law as we are now. Crucially, we are outside the EU's control in respect of negotiating trade deals with countries outside the EU, such as India or China. There is a process whereby new EU law is discussed and implemented or not, as the case may be. Should we choose the EEA, it would be bolstered by our presence, and we could enter that in a very short space of time

Well lets see what happens shall we? You are great at coming up with hypothetical scenarios which let's face it, is what the entire Leave campaign was based on.

It's just another re-hash of the "It'll be alright on the night" concept.

We are not Liechtenstein. Do they have a car industry? A massive service industry wanting access to the EU market? Or are they a tax haven (they have more registered companies than citizens).

You have made a huge leap that because a tiny landlocked country of 62 square miles in size with a population of 37,000 has some rather unique arrangements with the EU with nothing like our population or industry or our needs with respect to access to the single market, that we will get the same deal. No way!

You have also glossed over the important fact of Norway's situation which is no say in the rules.

Finance and services are already working out which bits and which jobs are off to the EU so they are within the Eu area and free to trade there without restriction. They are not waiting for any hypothetical deals.

Ironically without us having a say it looks like the TTIP is dead. Hidden under the Brexit fall out is the French PM killing it off and with no UK government championing it, it looks to be finished.

I bet we get a TTIP with the US though, with all the bad things.

I think i'm right in saying that TTIP would be dead in any case; neither Clinton or Trump are willing to support it.

You seem to imply that the rules are based on the size, industry or population of the country, when in fact they are not. They are rules within the ambit of the EEA agreement, and if we were to join the EEA, our presence would strengthen the other nations in it. I thought you were big on EU/EEA rules and regs; you always seem to be pointing out how good they are.Your difficulty is you have lost all sense of reason; you've become like a toddler whizzing your toys out of your cot, and there is no reasoning with toddler who's had a bad day

It may come as a surprise to you as a Europhile, but there was no real economic certainty in remaining either. The only certainty was the inevitable pull towards closer and closer union, and the erosion of a democratically elected national government, in deference to a panel of non elected bureaucrats.

In any event, we haven't had much of a say in the rules whilst we have been in the EU. Almost every time we challenged the rules, we lost.


Project fear is still in full swing with the remain side I see.