Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Do you think we will actually end up leaving the eu? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snailsareslimy)
    We probably will leave, but as many have said, I don't think those who campaigned for Leave genuinely thought we'd end up leaving. In my honest opinion, Boris and Gove wanted to oppose David Cameron, bide their time, then say that not enough had been done, and they wanted to take control and move their way up the Tory party ladder. Boris wanted PM. They were in it for their own internal Tory politics, this was never about the people. That much is clear by the fact they've both been in hiding all weekend. If you were genuinely thrilled about the result (like Farage), you'd be doing interviews the entire weekend.

    They don't have a plan, they don't have a clue.

    But hey, as far as I'm concerned, their political careers are over. None of them have the balls to replace Cameron and invoke Article 50, because even if we can make us leaving the EU work, the rewards won't happen in the short term. Whoever takes on PM has to accept that they'll probably be one of the most hated Tory PMs in history. Those two are cowards, all I've heard from them is there's no "rush" to invoke Article 50, and they want to hold "informal" talks with the EU over the summer. Why the delay? If we're going to face a tough economic time because of these buffoons, we need people holding serious trade talks right now.

    So over this BS.
    I agree with this. Boris never really wanted Brexit, he is a man who knows he has ****ed up
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I think we will leave, that decision was made when Labour agreed to back the referendum result. On the flip side i think we'll end up with the Norway deal though, just dressed up.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    This is nonsense. We have a negative trade balance with the EU, and a positive one with non-EU countries. Any punitive tariffs that the EU countries erect against us would be worse for them, and we are already proving we can trade successfully with the rest of the world, even without trade deals. What's to fear?
    Yep. Take into account how successful our trade already is with non EU countries. Then factor in that we will finally be able to negotiate free trade deals with these countries.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Nope.

    I hope this will occur:

    Boris voted in as Tory Leader ---> General Election ---> no Majority hence Coalition Formed ---> new negotiations with the EU lead to change (as "punishment" the EU remove our £5 billion rebate) ---> second referendum where we agree new terms ---> continue in EU with a disrupted economy

    ^this probably will not occur, but the way everyone is reacting I cannot see how we will leave.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    And can we stop this Boris conspiracy theory?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    Nope.

    I hope this will occur:

    Boris voted in as Tory Leader ---> General Election ---> no Majority hence Coalition Formed ---> new negotiations with the EU lead to change (as "punishment" the EU remove our £5 billion rebate) ---> second referendum where we agree new terms ---> continue in EU with a disrupted economy

    ^this probably will not occur, but the way everyone is reacting I cannot see how we will leave.
    "new negotiations with the EU lead to change"

    Asked about the consequences of a Brexit vote, Mr Juncker made it clear there would be no scope for further negotiations over better terms to try to keep the UK on board."I have to add that the British policymakers and the British voters have to know there will be no kind of any renegotiation," he told reporters after talks with new Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern."We have concluded a deal with the prime minister, he got the maximum he could receive, we gave the maximum we could give."So there will be no kind of renegotiation, nor on the agreement we found in February, nor as far as any kind of treaty negotiations are concerned. Out is out."
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    The leave camp was absolutely aware of what it was voting for; to leave the European Union.



    Just as the Remain campaign lied. Osborne's punishment budget was a howler, and the claims that the NHS would collapse if the UK left the EU was an outrageous lie.

    It was a hard-fought campaign and both sides put a bit of pepper on the gloves. But the fact is that in a democracy you can never really know the exact reason why any particular voter opted for the option they did. This isn't like buying a car and then finding out there's something wrong with it; it's an exercise of popular sovereignty on a major political question.

    And you do come across as a bit ****ing hypocritical (and slightly hysterical) to shriek about the lies of the Leave campaign and ignore the lies of the Remain campaign.



    You are slightly confused. At no point did the official leave campaign promise to spend all of the money saved from the EU budget on the NHS, and in any case this isn't a general election fought on differing policies but a referendum on a very specific question

    I'm afraid you're going to have to grow up. Your side lost, it just comes across as immature and flaky (and dishonest) to now demand the result be overturned
    When did i say I want the vote to be overturned? We'll most probably stay within the EEA, which I'd be very happy with. But many leave voters will not be, as it means free movement of people. I'm simply disagreeing with the argument that the referendum results must be upheld for the sake of democracy and 'the will of the people'. Many of 'the people' were manipulated by politicians driven by self interest. More than anything, I'm curious to see what will happen now as many leave voters realise that immigration is here to stay and the NHS will not be getting £350 million.

    It's a bit disingenuous to cling to the fact that 'At no point did the official leave campaign promise to spend all of the money saved from the EU budget on the NHS'. 'Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week' was printed on their campaign posters and 'We send the EU £350 million a week - let's fund our NHS instead.' was printed on their campaign bus. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what their intention was.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samiz)
    "new negotiations with the EU lead to change"
    Yeah because when people say one thing it can never mean anything else...

    The EU will say all this because they want to punish us and make a point to the rest of the EU states
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snailsareslimy)
    Update: Boris is out of hiding!

    Continuing to distance himself from immigration and the racist tirade the Leave campaign began and said "absolutely" when asked if we were going to have free access to the single market and the free movement of people... Why did we leave the EU, then? Because that's awfully what the EU sounds like.

    He also stated that european citizens living in this country would "absolutely" have their rights protected, the same for British citizens living in other EU countries. Again, is that not what the EU was?

    All he said was he wanted a "fairer" system, but we won't get that system if we want access to the European market for trade, so did we really just vote to leave the EU when the politicians headlining the campaign are putting together the exact same system we had a few days ago? Really...
    Yes, really. That's why all the 'whiny' remainers are so dismayed.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    Yeah because when people say one thing it can never mean anything else...

    The EU will say all this because they want to punish us and make a point to the rest of the EU states
    Lol the President of the EU wouldn't lie about that. David Cameron went to Brussels, threatened that we would leave the EU, and got a woeful deal. So I think we can be pretty sure he's telling the truth.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    I think it's likely there will be new agreements with Australia; the Liberal Party (the conservatives) are quite Anglophile (excepting the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who is a republican).

    Australia is quite deft at negotiating free trade agreements (they have FTAs with the United States, Japan, South Korea, China and New Zealand) and there will be strong pressure on the conservative side to negotiate such an agreement.

    I'm sceptical of the likelihood of any free movement agreement with Australia as it would undermine Australia's current immigration policy (particularly as it would allow millions of recent immigrants to Britain to flood into Australia contrary to the points system). But there probably will be some easing up on visa restrictions
    I think free movement with countries from outside the eu is a plausible thing to occur. Its a benefit of being in the eu that we our loosing and i think the government will try to pursue this... I also think its possible that the UK and eu could come to some sort of half way agreement with issues like this, who knows
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samiz)
    Lol the President of the EU wouldn't lie about that. David Cameron went to Brussels, threatened that we would leave the EU, and got a woeful deal. So I think we can be pretty sure he's telling the truth.
    Of course, Politicians never lie

    Just like David said he'd trigger Article 50

    Maybe change the steps in my plan then?

    Boris voted in as Tory Leader ---> General Election ---> no Majority hence Coalition Formed ---> UK Parliamennt cannot agree on future steps ---> second referendum where we vote to remain ---> continue in EU with a disrupted economy
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    Nope.

    I hope this will occur:

    Boris voted in as Tory Leader ---> General Election ---> no Majority hence Coalition Formed ---> new negotiations with the EU lead to change (as "punishment" the EU remove our £5 billion rebate) ---> second referendum where we agree new terms ---> continue in EU with a disrupted economy

    ^this probably will not occur, but the way everyone is reacting I cannot see how we will leave.
    Why do you think a new PM means a general election? It doesn't, and no change of PM within one party has ever led to a general election as a result.

    If the new PM called an election he would win it hands down against the Labour party in its current state.

    Any general election called after an attempt by the government to avoid exit would result in a meltdown in the Labour and Tory votes, with UKIP massively helped.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    Of course, Politicians never lie

    Just like David said he'd trigger Article 50

    Maybe change the steps in my plan then?

    Boris voted in as Tory Leader ---> General Election ---> no Majority hence Coalition Formed ---> UK Parliamennt cannot agree on future steps ---> second referendum where we vote to remain ---> continue in EU with a disrupted economy
    Ah yes, stay in the failing EU with no further reform. I don't know why anybody would want that after voting to leave has triggered a domino effect, with calls for referendums in the likes of France, Sweden and Netherlands- it's obvious, from an advisory referendum, that the EU is collapsing and yet when we have the golden opportunity to escape to the lifeboats, people would rather stay on the sinking ship. Ah well, I respect their viewpoints and opinions.

    But as for your plan, this and all the Boris Johnson conspiracies are simply clutching straws. Cameron and Corbyn have accepted the democratic will. The Lib Dems have funnily said that if they were elected they'll remain in the EU (they could offer everyone a free house and probably still wouldn't get elected). If the next government decide to reject the democratic will of the British people, this will merely lead to more and more power for UKIP until we do leave, especially when people realise that the EU is opening a fresh round of talks with Turkey on June 30th.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Why do you think a new PM means a general election? It doesn't, and no change of PM within one party has ever led to a general election as a result.

    If the new PM called an election he would win it hands down against the Labour party in its current state.

    Any general election called after an attempt by the government to avoid exit would result in a meltdown in the Labour and Tory votes, with UKIP massively helped.
    Never say never

    You do not know who would win it as there have been no polls since the referendum.

    Do you not think we are in meltdown right now?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kieran1996)
    Do you not think we are in meltdown right now?
    No. We have a period when the nervous are panicky and some of the young want a re-sit.

    We will go on to better things, capitalising on good trade links with both the EU and the rest of the world.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shumaya)
    I know that referendums are democratic, I just don't think this one was. For true democracy, voters need to be informed and aware of what they're voting for. In this case, the leave campaign outright lied in order to get votes from people, and just a day after the referendum they were already backtracking. It's not even a matter of 'I promised that but I now realise that that's not possible'. They had no intention of delivering the things that arguably led them to victory. (e.g controlled immigration and £350 million to the NHS).
    That's not the definition of democracy. I think you probably meant paragon, and not paradigm.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...nglish/paragon

    For something to be a paragon, it has to be an ideal example of something, which is what you seem to be going for.

    The reason paradigm doesn't work in your sentence is because for something to be a paradigm, it merely has to be an example of something that fits a pattern. But to be a paragon, it has to be worthy of emulation, a model, an ideal... do you see the difference?

    It's much easier to make the argument that it's not a paragon of democracy, than it is to make the argument that it's not a paradigm of democracy. If you claim the former, you're claiming that this wasn't the best example of democracy and that there are better ways it could be conducted. I think that argument could be made.

    If you claim the latter, you're claiming that the referendum isn't an example of democracy at all, because you believe that democracy as a concept precludes uninformed voters from being agitated by people with a specific agenda. That's easily debunked, because democracy is merely defined as rule by the majority of people in a group.

    If you're still not convinced, let me show you some negative/critical quotes about democracy that show that this obviously isn't the definition:

    "The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." -- John F. Kennedy

    "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill

    "Democracy is the power of equal votes for unequal minds." -- Charles I of England

    Now, if the definition of democracy required voters to be well-informed, those quotes wouldn't make sense. If anything, most critiques of democracy are based on the fact that the concept does allow uninformed voters that are easily led to make decisions.

    I wouldn't ask you to accept that the referendum was a good example (paragon) of democracy, but I would ask that you accept that it in fact represents an example or pattern typical of democracy (paradigm).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samiz)
    And to the remain voters that have the dignity to understand how democracy works -thank you.
    I think a lot of Remain voters are dismayed, not simply because they didn't get the result that they wanted, but because they suspect that major flaws in the democratic process may have led to the final outcome not truly representing the collective will of the people, which is how democracy is supposed to work. It's become quite clear that many people voted to Leave expecting one thing and getting something very different, only to regret their vote once it had been cast. Britain hasn't even left the EU yet, and based on the intense national and global turmoil that has resulted from just the thought of leaving, I wonder if the opportunity for everyone to reconsider our votes would be welcomed by the majority of people.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samiz)
    If the next government decide to reject the democratic will of the British people, this will merely lead to more and more power for UKIP until we do leave, especially when people realise that the EU is opening a fresh round of talks with Turkey on June 30th.
    I agree about Turkey -- however it would surprise me if anyone from UKIP is brave enough to get in the middle of this shambles.

    Circumstances have changed - promises broken - politicians leaving en masse - call a new referendum with 'carry on with this lack of planning and lack of politicians willing to be the scapegoat' and 'get Cameron on his knees in the EU Parliament to let us stay' and I have to say I think many people would change their minds.

    I have problems with people saying the second referendum would be undemocratic - it would only either affirm that we as a people are willing to suffer for what we want or else that we've reconsidered. You know, seeing as most of the Leave campaign have also reconsidered.

    I also think if a PM resigned and most of the Opposition too, within 24 hours of a general election, we'd probably end up back to the Polls then, too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    Err, our leverage is access to the UK market. Once out of the EU it will be much easier to negotiate as the European Union finds it extremely difficult to corral all 28 members states to agree on the terms. That's why the EU doesn't have any free trade agreements with major countries.

    Australia has FTAs with the United States, Japan, South Korea, China and New Zealand. In fact, the three Asian FTAs were concluded simultaneously and only took about two years of substantive negotiations. It will be years before Australia has an FTA with the EU, but an FTA could be concluded with Britain fairly quickly.

    Given Australia's free trade orientation it's unlikely they will pass up that opportunity particularly given it will give them the sort of market access for their agricultural products that they lost when Britain joined the Common Market.

    I find it perplexing that people like you genuinely seem to despise your own country and have almost no faith that it's capable of managing its own affairs. It is kind-of pathetic.
    You're assuming that we will sign FTA's with all these countries immediately with no issue. Until then we are going to struggle.
    The deals will take a long time due to the amount that need to be done.
    And we will lose leverage. The EU and US are trying to strike a deal, although we all know there's been many problems but it's obvious that the US would rather deal with the EU as a whole rather than just us.

    If we want to continue FTA with the EU which is what is most likely going to happen then we will still be subject to most of their rules and we will still have to pay in. We just won't have any say in what those rules will be.

    You also have to consider the impact it will have on our finance sector which is the biggest contributor to our GDP. Investment into the country will most likely drop and businesses pull out of the country to mainland Europe.

    Most agree that for the next few years our economy will suffer and we'll be playing catchup for a long time. All of this for a small chance that we increase our GDP by a few percent. Is it all worth throwing away the many benefits being in the EU brings, not just talking about money.

    Although I agree that having an FTA with the US would be great and we should have pushed to be allowed to strike one by ourselves while remaining in the EU. And more should be done to protect the wages of low skilled workers in the UK.

    I actually welcome views from, what seems to be, intelligent leave voters. I hope we do well outside the EU. There was no need to get personal at the end though.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.