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

If the result is Leave, will we leave? Watch

  • View Poll Results: After a Leave result in the Referendum, the UK would...
    End up remaining after a lot of discussion and debate with little real change
    37
    21.02%
    End up remaining but with some meaningful changes
    17
    9.66%
    Leave but only half-heartedly and with little real change
    72
    40.91%
    Leave abruptly and possibly chaotically
    50
    28.41%

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    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 won't leave technically.

    In event of a leave vote Cameron will declare martial law and Nato will turn on us.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Naveed-7)
    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.
    its this kind of crap which stops me taking leave campaigns seriously.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drogon)
    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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
    You still ignore it. You can't ignore the facts.

    There's a big difference between decisions to do with the constitution and decisions to do with the EU membership. The whole referendum alongside the rise of far right parties in Europe will be a massive wake up call that the EU needs reform or it simply won't survive.

    Unnecessary burden regulations that we will have to abide by if we join the trading bloc, but now we have less benefits and no vote on. And if we dont join the free trading zone, well, i've already argued that on this thread.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    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.
    Still much less than our current net contribution.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    Who does the Commons majority consist of?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EuanF)
    Still much less than our current net contribution.
    I accept you will save about £2.5 Bn per year which is about the same cost as Winter Fuel Payments to the elderly (or a free case of claret as those of my acquaintance call it).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    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/Financia.../#.V179__krKUk

    I do think though that Norway's situation indicates that the Leave mantra that we will "save £350m a week" is complete tripe, we would still contribute heavily in various ways, or at least, we would if we wanted to keep any meaningful single market access.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    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/Financia.../#.V179__krKUk
    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.

    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.
    That sounds to me like an open invitation for Norwegians to fill their boots.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    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/
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    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/
    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.

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banterboy)
    its this kind of crap which stops me taking leave campaigns seriously.
    I would hope that's not the only thing that stops you taking the leave campaign seriously.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    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'm sorry to make a point about your last sentence that isn't relevant to what you're discussing (but is relevant to a lot of other things ) but I'm minded to point out that such a policy also tends(or so I'm lead to believe from certain popular psychology books which are probably crap) to increase overall happiness.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    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?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Lol, what a cynical view.
    It is cynicism about relative poverty. Make the richer poorer and relative poverty decreases. Make the poor richer and relative poverty increases.


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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    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.
    I simply prefer disregarding meaningless statistics and judging poverty by standards such as rates of malnutrition, poverty-linked diseases, accommodation standards, and possession of goods.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    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.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    Farage would describe what you propose as a sell out. I think a lot of Tories for whom immigration matters, will do likewise. I think Labour wouldn't whip the vote and most would abstain. If the Tory Leavers divide, then abstention becomes a defensible position for Remainers as well, so Tory Remain will divide between abstention and support.

    Is there a majority? I suspect fewer than half the House will vote.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    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.