What will actually happen if we stay in the EU?

guy writing the post must have been smoking some strong stuff

Why wouldn't the European Union Act 2011 survive?

What disruption will happen if a changes to professional recognition/organisation take place? I'm vaguely familiar with the Bologna process. Can you explain what the problems of that were and what problems it causes for us now?

I'm aware that non-tariff barriers in the Single Market can be dismantled/taken down under the current treaties. My point to BB was that the limits of this would remain the same if we revoked. In other words, what is currently law within the EU will remain the same. In particular, the long list of scary things he posted in the OP won't happen. Removing non-tariff barriers is a rather tame outcome/future for us in the EU compared to what they're trying to suggest could happen.

1) true! Yes I can understand the surprise, I'll explain why. This is a thread was worded in my own words about 4/5 months ago it got to about 3 pages of reasonable, non confrontational debate with people TSR decided it did not like it and removed it with no reason or explanation. Therefore I did this as a back door to the question, if you look at my replies I keep referring people too (which are again being ignored) these are the points I actually wish to discuss, I've been clear, the OP was just a way I could ask them with remain getting the upper hand, and the thread staying up.

So far @nulli tertius is the only one who is talking about what will ACTUALLY happen if we remain, the OP wont actually happen we all agree but, what will? If you think that's nothing, you are very mistaken.

2) Refer to point above and refer to #17 and #18 again just like I have to @Napp @barnetlad @ByEeek and @winterscoming and they have ignored it. I must admit I do enjoy watching remainer belittlement while missing the point also

No Government is going to want to embark on a treaty revision process where having settled all the horse trading it has to win support from an electorate where somewhere around 35% of the voters (I suspect that is around the irreducible percentage of Leavers for the next 15 years or so-people who were not moaning about immigration or giving Cameron a bloody nose but for whom leaving the EU was the key political issue) don't want to be in the EU at all and an adverse referendum result is likely to derail that Government's domestic programme and the domestic political agenda for years.

The disruption is that the "natural order of doing things" changes. In Hungary, uniquely in the EU, folk band leaders are a regulated profession. If the EU market in the performing arts is harmonised, life is either going to become quite different if you are organising a ceilidh in Tarbert or going out for a meal in Budapest. There are no bookmakers in most of Europe. The work that is reserved to legal practitioners in most of Europe is extensive; in the UK it is minimal.

People who complain about shop windows with signs in Polish, aren't going to be happy when the compromise is that the Cambridge architecture graduate is able to practise in Germany under his UK title but Bert who used to work for the Council is no longer able to draw up plans for a new porch.

The European Union Act is/was still law though. Hypothetically, if we did revoke Article 50 together with the European Union Withdrawal Act then the European Union Act will continue to exist in law.

Do you have any information to suggest that professions such as folk band leaders, bookmakers, etc, are to be harmonised across the EU in the near future? May you explain what you mean by your last paragraph?

As I explained, any Government would repeal the European Union Act before embarking on any Treaty revision discussion.

There is pressure to open up the EU gambling market. The reference to folk band leaders was to make a point humourously and it does not help the argument to be wilfully blind to that point.

A common market in services will both de-regulate what is currently regulated and regulate what is currently unregulated. For those who dislike change, like the people who dislike Polish shop windows even though no-one makes them buy or even look, they will be unhappy about that outcome.

You don't know if they would though. You've described a good reason for a future government to repeal it but this does not mean that they actually would. I'd be happy to argue that no government could repeal it as it would be political suicide; we have far too large of a euroskeptic population for them to get away with taking that power away from the public.

I understand the general idea of what you're saying could happen with regard to the service industry. What I am asking for are specific examples of what could change and what problems that would cause. You've mentioned the Bologna process, as an example, but haven't outlined what exactly was wrong with it or what problems were caused by it.

@SHallowvale

The answer to what happens if we remain is clearly not "basically nothing".

The obvious change Is the rise of the farage style threat led to a still harsher line on Europe? It's not like he wont have powerful and willing ally in many sections of the media. In the right-wing red tops for example. The voice of the people as they would claim.

Also our stature what kind of Britain would rejoin around the EU table? This would be a Britain that had voted to leave, and would be remaining on terms worse than those it had rejected by Cameron. Or would they still honour the the agreement negotiated by Cameron, would the other members allow this, the spoilt child returns home and keeps his/her toys and privileges over their siblings.

Then theres the cost. Most leavers already feel that the Eu is a expensive club to be in,but revoke remaining in that club would make it even more expensive. EU’s budget chief Guenther Oettinger last year made it clear that Britain would lose this rebate worth billions. There are quite simply people in the eu that want to make an example of Britain. I think the whole process from the EU side has been to make an example of Britain. If the 5th largest economy in the world can't leave the EU anybody else is quite simply screwed.

With this diminished power and lack of ability to leave the club. What realistic power would we have of controlling anything or exercising any of our supposed vetos? Any referendum result on any future changes that the EU decided to make as it moves into its more federalist direction. Which it is clearly going to make within the next few decades, that's obvious. This literally makes a mockery of any veto or referendum that we will have regarding future changes in the EU and whether to accept them or not, because if we vote not accept them we're effectively voting to leave. This is because the entire world knows we cant leave, so we will have to accept any scraps which get thrown our way. This means the European Union Act 2011, which requires a UK referendum before any treaty changes, if survives will be totally gutless anyway.

Not leaving has a cost too, to suggest otherwise is naive and shortsighted.This is the real topic I wanted too discuss. Well for months now but TSR don't like it. As you rightly point out the country has long since traveled past the point of no return on brexit. Revoke and remain is not a realistic option. I think the remainers in parliament really messed up by not voing in may deal mk1, that would of slicenced the xenophobic few and satisfied the politically disinterested majority of the country. Only the tiny minority leavers and remainers would still still cry, but they will cry regardless. Someone needs to get this brexit bomb sent to bed, make referendums illegal and start talking about real life issues.

I've just sat in a 3 hour meeting at work about Brexit, I'm sick to the back teeth of it. Best of it is every person in the room (including me)thought we was wasting company money and just want a bloody answer. No deal us better than no answer, it amazing we have any business left with our politicians.


There you're last reply was a little like the 'I haven't got time gaffer argument' the age old operative arguing for 15 minutes that they don't have time to do a 2 minute job! I've copy pasted the points for you now BTW people are not ignoring me, they are uber quick to insult

1. If we voted to remain or revoked then we'd stay/return to the terms that had existed before. Whatever powers/representation the UK has in the EU under the current treaties would resume.

2. Guenther Oettinger will soon be the ex-commissioner for the EU's budget, there's no telling that the future commissioner will feel the same way.

3. Multiple countries have rejected EU treaty changes in the past yet they haven't left the EU. The UK would be in the same position. If the EU does push for further federal powers then it must be with the support of the British public. Voting to remain/revoking also doesn't stop us from having a referendum again on our EU membership either.

Oh wow! So don't worry about what powerful unelected people (whom the British electorate have zero direct elected power over) are actually doing. We should cross our fingers and hope/pray that there replacements "will feel a different way"?? seriously?

Before I carry on i think its important i ask you a couple of questions;

1) Do you actually believe that should we revoke tomorrow, there will be no consequences of the result of the 2016 referendum?

2) Do you actually think our global neighbours (both outside and inside the EU) will erase the last 3 years from there memory and hold any future referendum result given by the British electorate on EU matters, with the same respect and seriousness as it would have if the 2016 leave vote never happened?

The UK has a veto on changes to the UK rebate. Whatever some "powerful unelected" person says on the matter isn't relevant.

1. Aside from the fallout of enraging leave voters and the country looking like a laughing stock, no.

2. The world would move on, as would they. With regards to future referendums in the UK on EU matters: it isn't for them to decide. If it's in law that the UK won't accept treaty changes unless backed by a referendum then they can't, legally, do anything.

The UK has a veto on changes to the UK rebate. Whatever some "powerful unelected" person says on the matter isn't relevant.

1. Aside from the fallout of enraging leave voters and the country looking like a laughing stock, no.

2. The world would move on, as would they. With regards to future referendums in the UK on EU matters: it isn't for them to decide. If it's in law that the UK won't accept treaty changes unless backed by a referendum then they can't, legally, do anything.

1) Well the answers you give are a little contradictory. You say no we would suffer no consequences of the result of the 2016 referendum, but admit raging leave voters and the country would look a laughing stock! It's the countries credibility that we both mention and the consequences that diminished national credibility that would cause the changes. For a start the cameron negotiated changes will be toast

2) I'm not suggesting for a second the world wont move on, you are either totally missing the point or deliberately trying to create a strawman. Britain has had half in, half out style EU membership in the past, we have the most privileged to membership of the group. It got this from its strong respected position, economic worth and the EU's need to keep us happy to remain in the group. This need has or will totally flip on its head if we revoke, laughing stocks don't get much respect and concessions around negotiation tables and laws can be changed very quickly as we have witnessed in the last few weeks, albeit in UK law.
Referda needs outlawing in the UK in my opinion but that's another topic, basically my point you have helped prove, the UK is going to be globally seen as a weaker voice, this will reduce our global stance, worth, sature and future in the world!