[POLL] Brexit poll

[bilby]

Two years.

Two years is the time allowed under the Treaty of Lisbon. After that, all movement and employment privileges for the citizens of former members are void - if a new deal hasn't been completed by then, tough shit.

The Treaty of Lisbon introduced an exit clause for members who wish to withdraw from the Union. Under TEU Article 50, a Member State would notify the European Council of its intention to exit the Union and a withdrawal agreement would be negotiated between the Union and that State. The treaties of the European Union would cease to be applicable to that State from the date of the agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification unless the State and the Council both agree to extend this period.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union

I think it would take longer. Europeans are also practical and logical so I don't think too much stupidity will take place if points from both sides are not fully finalized.
A quicker interim method would be to allow those who worked before the BREXIT to continue as before or perhaps get extended and those who joined after to meet more formalities.

What you think doesn't change the law.

I think it would take longer too - but the law is clear; if it takes more than two years, then all existing treaty arrangements between the departing member state and the EU are void.

That's how long the Treaty of Lisbon says they have to reach an agreement; and if no agreement is reached by then, tough shit.

If it takes longer on both sides of the Atlantic, common sense not bureaucracy (eurocracy) dictates that the parties can give each other an extension where needed. In any business transactions extension in terms of time, are very common.

I don't know what planet you come from, but on this planet, the law is not suspended in favour of 'common sense' - and that's a good thing, because 'common sense' usually means either an idea that is common, but not sensible; or an idea that is sensible, but not common.

The Lisbon Treaty is the relevant law. What you, or anyone else, might think is a better or more 'common sense' idea, will not be allowed to overrule that law.

I would also like to point out that on this planet, the EU and UK are both on the same side of the Atlantic.

I work with contract including government contracts and that is how people discuss issues during the execution of agreements. Time overruns are frequent and usually negotiated.

If Britain kicks out 1 million Europeans and Europe kicks out 1 million Britons instead of discussing the changeover for a few months, that would be somewhat asinine.

Oh well, that's a relief. Because no government in history has ever done anything asinine.

 

[lpetrich]

That doesn't address my question. The question is 'Will Britain leave?' The answers are In and Out. In could mean 'Yes they will leave', as in "I'm in" or it could be 'In" as in they "stay in".

aha. In, as in In EU. Or Out as in leave the EU

DrZoidberg, you ought to have been more specific in your descriptions of the poll's options. Like making them "In the EU" and "Out of the EU".

 

[whichphilosophy]

Two years.

Two years is the time allowed under the Treaty of Lisbon. After that, all movement and employment privileges for the citizens of former members are void - if a new deal hasn't been completed by then, tough shit.

The Treaty of Lisbon introduced an exit clause for members who wish to withdraw from the Union. Under TEU Article 50, a Member State would notify the European Council of its intention to exit the Union and a withdrawal agreement would be negotiated between the Union and that State. The treaties of the European Union would cease to be applicable to that State from the date of the agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification unless the State and the Council both agree to extend this period.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union

I think it would take longer. Europeans are also practical and logical so I don't think too much stupidity will take place if points from both sides are not fully finalized.
A quicker interim method would be to allow those who worked before the BREXIT to continue as before or perhaps get extended and those who joined after to meet more formalities.

What you think doesn't change the law.

I think it would take longer too - but the law is clear; if it takes more than two years, then all existing treaty arrangements between the departing member state and the EU are void.

That's how long the Treaty of Lisbon says they have to reach an agreement; and if no agreement is reached by then, tough shit.

If it takes longer on both sides of the Atlantic, common sense not bureaucracy (eurocracy) dictates that the parties can give each other an extension where needed. In any business transactions extension in terms of time, are very common.

I don't know what planet you come from, but on this planet, the law is not suspended in favour of 'common sense' - and that's a good thing, because 'common sense' usually means either an idea that is common, but not sensible; or an idea that is sensible, but not common.

The Lisbon Treaty is the relevant law. What you, or anyone else, might think is a better or more 'common sense' idea, will not be allowed to overrule that law.

I would also like to point out that on this planet, the EU and UK are both on the same side of the Atlantic.

I work with contract including government contracts and that is how people discuss issues during the execution of agreements. Time overruns are frequent and usually negotiated.

If Britain kicks out 1 million Europeans and Europe kicks out 1 million Britons instead of discussing the changeover for a few months, that would be somewhat asinine.

Oh well, that's a relief. Because no government in history has ever done anything asinine.

Of course governments have.
Lets give you a simple one. If you have a builder who is working on your house and quoted 4 weeks, but due to some problems asked for an extension of time (but no extra cost) would you grant it to him or kick him out.
Despite the affliction of Europhilia in some political circles Europeans are also practical when real live situations occur.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ok, I don't have the knowledge background for this, but can someone please make a new thread on how the EU became what it is and if was a planned out bait and switch?

Thanks

This is how it started:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Coal_and_Steel_Community

The goal was to integrate the economies of Europe to make it impossible to start a war. So the goal was never to make life easier for the member states. Only to make them interdependent

 

[bilby]

Two years.

Two years is the time allowed under the Treaty of Lisbon. After that, all movement and employment privileges for the citizens of former members are void - if a new deal hasn't been completed by then, tough shit.

The Treaty of Lisbon introduced an exit clause for members who wish to withdraw from the Union. Under TEU Article 50, a Member State would notify the European Council of its intention to exit the Union and a withdrawal agreement would be negotiated between the Union and that State. The treaties of the European Union would cease to be applicable to that State from the date of the agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification unless the State and the Council both agree to extend this period.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union

I think it would take longer. Europeans are also practical and logical so I don't think too much stupidity will take place if points from both sides are not fully finalized.
A quicker interim method would be to allow those who worked before the BREXIT to continue as before or perhaps get extended and those who joined after to meet more formalities.

What you think doesn't change the law.

I think it would take longer too - but the law is clear; if it takes more than two years, then all existing treaty arrangements between the departing member state and the EU are void.

That's how long the Treaty of Lisbon says they have to reach an agreement; and if no agreement is reached by then, tough shit.

If it takes longer on both sides of the Atlantic, common sense not bureaucracy (eurocracy) dictates that the parties can give each other an extension where needed. In any business transactions extension in terms of time, are very common.

I don't know what planet you come from, but on this planet, the law is not suspended in favour of 'common sense' - and that's a good thing, because 'common sense' usually means either an idea that is common, but not sensible; or an idea that is sensible, but not common.

The Lisbon Treaty is the relevant law. What you, or anyone else, might think is a better or more 'common sense' idea, will not be allowed to overrule that law.

I would also like to point out that on this planet, the EU and UK are both on the same side of the Atlantic.

I work with contract including government contracts and that is how people discuss issues during the execution of agreements. Time overruns are frequent and usually negotiated.

If Britain kicks out 1 million Europeans and Europe kicks out 1 million Britons instead of discussing the changeover for a few months, that would be somewhat asinine.

Oh well, that's a relief. Because no government in history has ever done anything asinine.

Of course governments have.
Lets give you a simple one. If you have a builder who is working on your house and quoted 4 weeks, but due to some problems asked for an extension of time (but no extra cost) would you grant it to him or kick him out.
Despite the affliction of Europhilia in some political circles Europeans are also practical when real live situations occur.

Not an analogous situation.

Lets give you a simple one. If one of your key staff quits, and you require him to work out the two months notice in his contract, while you recruit his replacement; but after two months, he comes to you and says he hasn't found a new job yet, would you still allow him to stay, even though it won't inconvenience you in the slightest to tell him to get fucked?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Two years.

Two years is the time allowed under the Treaty of Lisbon. After that, all movement and employment privileges for the citizens of former members are void - if a new deal hasn't been completed by then, tough shit.

The Treaty of Lisbon introduced an exit clause for members who wish to withdraw from the Union. Under TEU Article 50, a Member State would notify the European Council of its intention to exit the Union and a withdrawal agreement would be negotiated between the Union and that State. The treaties of the European Union would cease to be applicable to that State from the date of the agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification unless the State and the Council both agree to extend this period.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union

I think it would take longer. Europeans are also practical and logical so I don't think too much stupidity will take place if points from both sides are not fully finalized.
A quicker interim method would be to allow those who worked before the BREXIT to continue as before or perhaps get extended and those who joined after to meet more formalities.

What you think doesn't change the law.

I think it would take longer too - but the law is clear; if it takes more than two years, then all existing treaty arrangements between the departing member state and the EU are void.

That's how long the Treaty of Lisbon says they have to reach an agreement; and if no agreement is reached by then, tough shit.

If it takes longer on both sides of the Atlantic, common sense not bureaucracy (eurocracy) dictates that the parties can give each other an extension where needed. In any business transactions extension in terms of time, are very common.

I don't know what planet you come from, but on this planet, the law is not suspended in favour of 'common sense' - and that's a good thing, because 'common sense' usually means either an idea that is common, but not sensible; or an idea that is sensible, but not common.

The Lisbon Treaty is the relevant law. What you, or anyone else, might think is a better or more 'common sense' idea, will not be allowed to overrule that law.

I would also like to point out that on this planet, the EU and UK are both on the same side of the Atlantic.

I work with contract including government contracts and that is how people discuss issues during the execution of agreements. Time overruns are frequent and usually negotiated.

If Britain kicks out 1 million Europeans and Europe kicks out 1 million Britons instead of discussing the changeover for a few months, that would be somewhat asinine.

Oh well, that's a relief. Because no government in history has ever done anything asinine.

Of course governments have.
Lets give you a simple one. If you have a builder who is working on your house and quoted 4 weeks, but due to some problems asked for an extension of time (but no extra cost) would you grant it to him or kick him out.
Despite the affliction of Europhilia in some political circles Europeans are also practical when real live situations occur.

Not an analogous situation.

Lets give you a simple one. If one of your key staff quits, and you require him to work out the two months notice in his contract, while you recruit his replacement; but after two months, he comes to you and says he hasn't found a new job yet, would you still allow him to stay, even though it won't inconvenience you in the slightest to tell him to get fucked?

That's even more remote than the one I mentioned. In the case of the EU there will be people working there already on contract. It will be impractical to sack millions of people both sides of the Atlantic. I am sure that at least they can serve their contract term.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That doesn't address my question. The question is 'Will Britain leave?' The answers are In and Out. In could mean 'Yes they will leave', as in "I'm in" or it could be 'In" as in they "stay in".

aha. In, as in In EU. Or Out as in leave the EU

Thanks. I'm in with In.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Interesting that our poll pretty well matches the real ones.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Interesting that our poll pretty well matches the real ones.

Britain will most likely vote to stay in as a last minute panic where current polls are somewhat very close and subject to variation of course.
There are enough swing voters who do not wish to let go of staying in the Eu which in reality is the prefer to stay biting on their comfort blankets
Definition of Comfort Blanket A comfort object, transitional object, or security blanket is an item used to provide psychological comfort, especially in unusual or unique situations, or at bedtime for small children This is the first stage of Europhilia

http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/security-blanket-linus.gif

It's better in the EU

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/06/britain-s-eu-referendum

 

[Speakpigeon]

Me I don't believe that the UK government will let the British people choose to leave so I expect more dirty tricks and Cameron was trained at a so-called public school so you can trust him to know how to do it. I think big business in the UK wants to stay in and these guys can become killers if need be. Those who want out are the disgruntled at all levels and many are real nasties when it comes to it, just listen to their "arguments", but they're not up to the job. The results will depend mostly on how many people have lost money and status over the last fifty years of both Tory and New Labour government. If you don't kow, I'm telling you it makes a lot of people. The main counter argument to this sociological trend is fear: if we leave it's going to hurt real bad like you haven't seen anything like it yet. But it may not be enough so I'm still expecting more creative countermeasures, like extending at the last minute the registration date for voting. It's funny how everything becomes possible when you have your heart in it!

And it's a bit like the Trump crowd in the U.S. You can ignore those you don't like only for so long. The political discourse has become so vacuous today it's a call to murder. The reason for that, absent any archenemy like the Soviets (bless them), is that the political personel has no truth left they could tell voters. They have only lies and it's starting to show. Your Majesty, you'll just get what you deserve.

Me I prefer the UK to remain as parochial as could be so I can visit there and feel like I'm in an exotic place. Europe tends to mix up cultures so it's not good for exoticism.

Brits who retired in France and Spain and Portugal may want to go home if it came to that, so we'll loose some shillings here and there in the event. But, British workers may also have to find another place to earn a living so it won't be good for the economy though a bit better for the locals on the dole. Trade will carry on, possibly with some tariffs but it won't affect me much. I think it's the Brits who will suffer most but maybe not that much.

There are also probably undiscussed issues like whether the City in London could remain for very long the financial centre it is if the UK left. Strategic aspects are not really discussed either but it's perhaps one reason the government want to stay in and all institutions worldwide advise to stay in.

David, I'm begging you, please let your people decide freely! It should be possible to work to join again anyway if what you claim will happen does happen. It's a matter of spending a few years out and see what happens. Things will be clarified and your opponents will be shown wrong on all counts. If you are right. And those who advise to stay in could only welcome you back.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

aha. In, as in In EU. Or Out as in leave the EU

Thanks. I'm in with In.

You mean you're out with Out, right?
EB

 

[whichphilosophy]

Me I don't believe that the UK government will let the British people choose to leave so I expect more dirty tricks and Cameron was trained at a so-called public school so you can trust him to know how to do it. I think big business in the UK wants to stay in and these guys can become killers if need be. Those who want out are the disgruntled at all levels and many are real nasties when it comes to it, just listen to their "arguments", but they're not up to the job. The results will depend mostly on how many people have lost money and status over the last fifty years of both Tory and New Labour government. If you don't kow, I'm telling you it makes a lot of people. The main counter argument to this sociological trend is fear: if we leave it's going to hurt real bad like you haven't seen anything like it yet. But it may not be enough so I'm still expecting more creative countermeasures, like extending at the last minute the registration date for voting. It's funny how everything becomes possible when you have your heart in it!

And it's a bit like the Trump crowd in the U.S. You can ignore those you don't like only for so long. The political discourse has become so vacuous today it's a call to murder. The reason for that, absent any archenemy like the Soviets (bless them), is that the political personel has no truth left they could tell voters. They have only lies and it's starting to show. Your Majesty, you'll just get what you deserve.

Me I prefer the UK to remain as parochial as could be so I can visit there and feel like I'm in an exotic place. Europe tends to mix up cultures so it's not good for exoticism.

Brits who retired in France and Spain and Portugal may want to go home if it came to that, so we'll loose some shillings here and there in the event. But, British workers may also have to find another place to earn a living so it won't be good for the economy though a bit better for the locals on the dole. Trade will carry on, possibly with some tariffs but it won't affect me much. I think it's the Brits who will suffer most but maybe not that much.

There are also probably undiscussed issues like whether the City in London could remain for very long the financial centre it is if the UK left. Strategic aspects are not really discussed either but it's perhaps one reason the government want to stay in and all institutions worldwide advise to stay in.

David, I'm begging you, please let your people decide freely! It should be possible to work to join again anyway if what you claim will happen does happen. It's a matter of spending a few years out and see what happens. Things will be clarified and your opponents will be shown wrong on all counts. If you are right. And those who advise to stay in could only welcome you back.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks. I'm in with In.

You mean you're out with Out, right?
EB

Some polls show that the vote will be very close. Europeans and British are less bureaucratic than peoples from Asia and Africa so I would expect sensible discussions on whether Brits stay in Europe and European stay in the UK. I believe the rules will be quite informal. British people in the oil and gas industries have found it easy to get well paid jobs in Norway for a number of years.
It's a good idea to let people work after the BREXIT with a proper work contract but should allow more sensible arrangements for people who are already working.

As for existing businesses it's easy to operate a foreign branch of a company whether or not they are in the EU.

I think discussions on some issues may take longer than the two years limitation if each party gives each other extensions.

 

[bilby]

As someone who no longer lives in the UK or the EU, I am taking a selfish stance here - I plan to visit the UK for a holiday in a couple of months, and I want whatever result leads to a lower value for the pound vs the Aussie Dollar, so that my spending money goes further

 

[repoman]

 

[whichphilosophy]

As someone who no longer lives in the UK or the EU, I am taking a selfish stance here - I plan to visit the UK for a holiday in a couple of months, and I want whatever result leads to a lower value for the pound vs the Aussie Dollar, so that my spending money goes further

Why not. A devalued pound will attract some extra tourists for a while.

 

[iolo]

The whole problem with this totally ridiculous campaign is that the Brexit weirdoes will never be in power and can promise whatever they choose without responsibility. Left to themselves, of course, they would reduce us to slum-dwellers in the Manchester of the 1840s, but they never will be, fortunately.

 

[repoman]

 

[Speakpigeon]

The whole problem with this totally ridiculous campaign is that the Brexit weirdoes will never be in power and can promise whatever they choose without responsibility. Left to themselves, of course, they would reduce us to slum-dwellers in the Manchester of the 1840s, but they never will be, fortunately.

Cameron will have to go sooner if the leave camp wins and Boris looks already like a Prime Minister-in-waiting. In fact, he stands accused of having chosen the Brexit camp just so he can replace Cameron in the event. A Boris at No. 10 wouldn't necessarily ask all Brexit weirdoes to join his government. And some of them are already in government anyway. I also think he is more careful in his arguments. He is weirder in his appearance but more reasonable on substance. It's hedging this way I'm afraid. Anyway, Cameron was a bit bland after Thatcher and Blair. Time to go back to character.
EB

 

[iolo]

The whole problem with this totally ridiculous campaign is that the Brexit weirdoes will never be in power and can promise whatever they choose without responsibility. Left to themselves, of course, they would reduce us to slum-dwellers in the Manchester of the 1840s, but they never will be, fortunately.

Cameron will have to go sooner if the leave camp wins and Boris looks already like a Prime Minister-in-waiting. In fact, he stands accused of having chosen the Brexit camp just so he can replace Cameron in the event. A Boris at No. 10 wouldn't necessarily ask all Brexit weirdoes to join his government. And some of them are already in government anyway. I also think he is more careful in his arguments. He is weirder in his appearance but more reasonable on substance. It's hedging this way I'm afraid. Anyway, Cameron was a bit bland after Thatcher and Blair. Time to go back to character.
EB

You really think a split and discredited tory party will ever win another election? What a bloody fool Cameron was to risk it!

 

[whichphilosophy]

Cameron will have to go sooner if the leave camp wins and Boris looks already like a Prime Minister-in-waiting. In fact, he stands accused of having chosen the Brexit camp just so he can replace Cameron in the event. A Boris at No. 10 wouldn't necessarily ask all Brexit weirdoes to join his government. And some of them are already in government anyway. I also think he is more careful in his arguments. He is weirder in his appearance but more reasonable on substance. It's hedging this way I'm afraid. Anyway, Cameron was a bit bland after Thatcher and Blair. Time to go back to character.
EB

You really think a split and discredited tory party will ever win another election? What a bloody fool Cameron was to risk it!

Actually our parties in the UK often have internal rifts, where at least during the election the back stabbing is postponed to show a face of unity.

Though hoping to see a yes to an exit, I think the majority will choose to remain.

The anti Brexit camp will definitely have a lot of Eurogasms when the results are announced.

 

[iolo]

You really think a split and discredited tory party will ever win another election? What a bloody fool Cameron was to risk it!

Actually our parties in the UK often have internal rifts, where at least during the election the back stabbing is postponed to show a face of unity.

The tories have let the arras slip. I'd say they were buggered!