If the result is Leave, will we leave?

With many polls now suggesting a majority for Leave, I can't help but wonder what the real outcome of a Leave vote would be.

The law that created the referendum in no way binds the government to do any specific thing as a result. Cameron will not want to leave. Even if he immediately resigned and was replaced in an election by Bojo or Teresa May, there are no certainties. May is a Remainer and Boris was until about a month before the campaign and he saw an opportunity to defeat his old enemy Dave.

So what would actually happen? Would HMG steam in to battle, determined to remove us from the EU? Or something different?

My guess is there would be a prolonged period of 'negotiating the departure'. At the end of it, the government will announce that there are so many terrible consequences that having thought it all over, they think the best thing would be to remain in after all.

Thoughts?

We wont be ****ed. Have some faith, believe in yourself , believe in our country and vote leave. Things will work out mate.
I'd rather take the risk, than let a controlling organisation from another country ruin our country and rob us.

Wait so i provided a full analysis of potential consequences and you chose to ignore it all and dismiss it? Great, you represent the typical mindset of a brexiter. If you're going to criticise the source, give me some solid reasons as to what is wrong with the methodology because as far as im concerned, its pretty rigorous.

As i said, this referendum will be a wake up call for the EU. Furthermore much of these arguments are based on the premise that all of the EU laws arent in our favour or desirable to us. But truth is, once we leave we will still use similar laws.

Dont be silly, there are trade blocs with custom unions. At the end of the day the single market is working and that's done been positive for this economy.

I did kinda say "if you're doing a cost benefit analysis it is normally general practice to actually include the benefits"

As for this being a wake up call, do I have to remind you what happened in 2005 when the constitution was rejected by the French and Dutch, you would have thought that a wake up call, nope, renamed the Lisbon Treaty with the stuff re ordered within it, rejected by the Irish. Is this a wake up call? Nope, make them vote again. The treaty with Ukraine wasn't approved of by the Dutch (and a lot of others but only the Dutch had a referendum) wake up call? Nah.

As for the single market working, depends how you define working: trade has not ground to a halt? Unsurprisingly, yeah, has worked. Doesn't come with unnecessary burdening regulations? Maybe not.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes. Norway scaled up suggests about £3bn but that's much less than our current net contribution.

Hang on. Norway's net contribution is about 866 million Euros.

If you scale up by GDP you get to about £3Bn but if you scale up by population you get to nearer £6Bn.

the new guy will be instructed to capitulate on free movement to secure the deal, the deal is done within a year bar the technicalities, the UK leaves at the end of 2018 to join EFTA.

Still much less than our current net contribution.

Hang on. Norway's net contribution is about 866 million Euros.

If you scale up by GDP you get to about £3Bn but if you scale up by population you get to nearer £6Bn.

It's difficult to say what Norway would pay if it was a full member by way of comparison, but a big slice of that (388m Euro) is part of the voluntary EEA programme which is kind of like the EU Social Fund but not the same exactly. So it's a bit difficult to compare like with like.
http://www.eu-norway.org/eu/Financial-contribution/#.V179__krKUk

Areas that are naturally disadvantaged from a geographical viewpoint (remote, mountainous or sparsely populated areas) benefit from special treatment. Lastly, the outermost areas also benefit from specific assistance from the ERDF to address possible disadvantages due to their remoteness.

There is a thread elsewhere on TSR about Cromwell and Charles I. I think Norway's voluntary contribution is as voluntary as the loans made to Charles I.

It is impossible to know what Norway would pay if they were in the EU. They may even be net recipients. Much of the EU budget goes to agriculture and the ERDF. I'm not sure they would do well from CAP but the ERDF would relieve the non-existent poverty of rural Norway.



That sounds to me like an open invitation for Norwegians to fill their boots.

It's tempting to think that 'poverty' in Norway is probably defined as only having one Volvo, or not being allowed to holiday in Tuscany every single summer, but the reality is probably a little different.
http://borgenproject.org/look-poverty-norway/

As of 2014, child poverty is on the rise in Norway. It is estimated that 78,000 children are suffering at this time. Three point four percent of children are living in a state of ‘relative’ poverty. In Norway, it is defined as households with income below 50 per cent of the national median.

its this kind of crap which stops me taking leave campaigns seriously.

I spend a fair amount of time in Norway (not the poorer suburbs of Oslo, I agree) and have seen very little poverty.

Mind you having read this I see that I can vastly reduce Norway's child poverty.



If I introduce a pay cut for the top earners; that will reduce the median income. There will be fewer children living below 50% of the median income. Poverty will have fallen.

That is the secret to eliminating poverty; make people poorer and poverty will disappear.

I spend a fair amount of time in Norway (not the poorer suburbs of Oslo, I agree) and have seen very little poverty.

Mind you having read this I see that I can vastly reduce Norway's child poverty.



If I introduce a pay cut for the top earners; that will reduce the median income. There will be fewer children living below 50% of the median income. Poverty will have fallen.

That is the secret to eliminating poverty; make people poorer and poverty will disappear.

Lol, what a cynical view.

I suppose you would propose reducing cancer rates by having more people die in wars before they reach the age where they can get cancer?

It is cynicism about relative poverty. Make the richer poorer and relative poverty decreases. Make the poor richer and relative poverty increases.




One of the first things I look at when someone cites illness rates is average lifespan, mortality rates and infant mortality rates.

Call me idealistic, but I prefer the idea of upward progress of all and equality of the best, rather than dragging down the numbers to make it all seem sweet.

Who does the Commons majority consist of?

About 240 Labour MP's, about 200 Out Tories (100 of which are hardline lets say) and about 130 establishment/In Tory MP's.

Since i don't think anybody will seriously vote down an exit in serious numbers i expect a fair abstain number but enough Tory and Labour MP's would accept something like EFTA.