Brexit: So let's have some positives from the Leave lot

[sleepy]

Glad to see you admit that the oil belongs to scotland.

If the UK left the EU, but Scotland became independent and managed to rejoin the EU, I imagine Scotland would do extremely well as presumably it would have some sort of free trade agreement with the rest of England.

So foreign companies could setup in Scotland, and benefit from being in the EU whilst also having easy trade with the newly independent and now smaller U.K.

 

[Henarar]

after the UK leaving the EU and Scotland leaving the UK would you support Scotland being a member of the EU @glasshouse

 

[Henarar]

presumably it would have some sort of free trade agreement with the rest of England

That should be a free trade agreement with the UK as that's what it would be

 

[Henarar]

That should be a free trade agreement with the UK as that's what it would be

And I think tariffs and a big ditch are the order of the day

 

[Muck Spreader]

Article from Money Week's Merryn Somerset-Webb. Very readable and includes an easy to understand chart on a pain free way out:

http://moneyweek.com/merryns-blog/the-options-for-britain-if-we-vote-for-brexit/

Put simply, the sub we pay to the European Union is almost double the amount of any tariff they impose on non EU members.

" ... the cash we pay into the EU every year comes to the equivalent of about 7% of the value of our exports to the EU. We are effectively paying a 7% tariff to avoid what would otherwise be a 3% tariff at the moment. Which seems a bit silly. Not being in the single market at all really wouldn’t be all bad."

IMO EFTA would be the worst option for the UK to follow. Keep most of the rules, pay most of the money, get more immigration and have no voice. The only plus point I could see is it maybe possible to protect UK agriculture to some extent, but that would need the government to maintain EU tariffs on non EU agricultural imports which I can't see them doing.

 

[matthew]

IMO EFTA would be the worst option for the UK to follow. Keep most of the rules, pay most of the money, get more immigration and have no voice. The only plus point I could see is it maybe possible to protect UK agriculture to some extent, but that would need the government to maintain EU tariffs on non EU agricultural imports which I can't see them doing.

It could be a stop gap to the Armageddon, black hole, plague of locusts forecast by Cameron and Co. Leaving a supranational state is not an instant process. Economic stability for the UK is vital.

Good article in ST today, from Booker. Especially on the origins of this European Union (as opposed to a Common Market) and how fishing was the clincher.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/06/18/will-vote-leaves-blunders-lose-us-the-day/

 

[glasshouse]

after the UK leaving the EU and Scotland leaving the UK would you support Scotland being a member of the EU @glasshouse

No, we need to copy norway.

 

[glasshouse]

IMO EFTA would be the worst option for the UK to follow. Keep most of the rules, pay most of the money, get more immigration and have no voice. The only plus point I could see is it maybe possible to protect UK agriculture to some extent, but that would need the government to maintain EU tariffs on non EU agricultural imports which I can't see them doing.

I disagree.
The one thing that is driving brexit is uncontrolled migration from former soviet bloc.
EFTA would restrict immigration while leaving trade alone, which is what uk folk signed up to in 73
However, that would not address the lunatic CAP

 

[sleepy]

No, we need to copy norway.

But I thought we were leaving because we were fed up of immigration, Norway is bound by the same freedom of movement laws as us.

The main difference between Norway / Switzerland and the U.K., is that they have loads of money, and we don't.

 

[glasshouse]

But I thought we were leaving because we were fed up of immigration, Norway is bound by the same freedom of movement laws as us.

The main difference between Norway / Switzerland and the U.K., is that they have loads of money, and we don't.

Norway could close its border anytime, and they have loads of cash from careful use of their oil and fishing, unlike the uk.

 

[sleepy]

Norway could close its border anytime, and they have loads of cash from careful use of their oil and fishing, unlike the uk.

Yes.... But they don't close their border because they want free access to the rest of the EU!

 

[Hilly]

Nothing wrong with the idea of a new Royal Yacht, the old one was probably the best marketing tool we ever had. The problem with financing a replacement was it had to come from British industry and as we know much of this is now tied up in short termism, foreign owned or only operates in the domestic market. So sufficient backing for the project was not forthcoming. Maybe the government should confiscate one of Sir Philip Greens yachts for the Queen.

Blair got rid of the Yacht because he could, scumbag. power crazy.

 

[Hilly]

Yes.... But they don't close their border because they want free access to the rest of the EU!

And the day they dont want it they can close their border and live quite happy, they make us look stupid.

 

[wanton dwarf]

But I thought we were leaving because we were fed up of immigration, Norway is bound by the same freedom of movement laws as us.

The main difference between Norway / Switzerland and the U.K., is that they have loads of money, and we don't.

We are voting to Leave or Remain in the EU.

Any other political stuff would be sorted out in a general election.

So if you wanted immigration but disagreed with the EU you could vote Leave.

There is going to be years of political debate regardless... too many people are not in agreement.

 

[Henarar]

No, we need to copy norway.

the SNP seem to want to belong to the EU they also want out of the UK
you may get what your given

 

[Two Tone]

This is an interesting thread @JP1 insofar as you are asking for positives from Leave, when the reality is that no-one on the Remain side actually has any positives for staying in, or believes in the EU.

None of them actually like the EU, but claim that by staying in it, we can reform and change it to their liking. Oh yeah! That is really going to happen, isn't it?

So it strikes me as very interesting that you are asking for positives, when there are so few, if any positives for Remaining even from it's own supporters. Remainers are the Pessimists.

On the other hand, Leavers may not have all the answers. But at least they can see what they want and realise that to achieve it, remaining within the EU will never be possible. Here is that chance. So Leavers are the Optimists

As is the case in life, Pessimists love to try to drag down Optimists. Which is exactly what your/this thread is all about.

 

[Two Tone]

Remain: dull, insincere, fatalistic, passive, defensive, weak, pessimistic

Leave: lively, sincerely insincere, active, reckless, confident, optimistic


Which team would you rather be on?

 

[sleepy]

Remain: dull, insincere, fatalistic, passive, defensive, weak, pessimistic

Leave: lively, sincerely/insincere, active, reckless, confident, optimistic


Which team would you rather be on?

Remain: liberal, pacifist, younger, content, happy

Leave: extreme, older, intolerant, angry, unhappy

 

[manhill]

If we come out now, that's it, FINAL!
If we stay, i.e. don't do anything and wait and see if this shock has had any good effect on the EU, can't we look at it again in a timescale that suits us?
This referendum is our business, not the EU's. We can have as many referendums to leave as we like.
If we left and wanted to rejoin it would then involve the EU.
Is it a good idea to give it a second chance?

 

[Derrick Hughes]

so you think the British vote of confidence to remain will shock them into change