Please help me understand - what exactly WILL happen if we leave the EU?

[DorynownotFloundering]

Because quite frankly I can't see how all these wonderful ideas Brexit have could be implemented if the govt are not in agreement & no one from the Leave side is in any position of power?

Genuine question.

[Spinflight]

Freedom of movement to Switzerland? One of my mates tried it, wasn't allowed in as he wasn't rich enough.

[Chalalala]

Yes, there is freedom of movement between Switzerland and the EU, since 2002. Switzerland has a lot more EU immigration than the UK does, proportionally to the population. Also a higher rate of EU-born Swiss population.

In 2014 the Swiss voted (in a referendum) to start imposing immigration quotas. The EU responded that doing so would void the EU-Swiss trade agreements, and that Switzerland would lose its (limited) access to the Single Market. So far the Swiss government hasn't implement the quotas, and is still looking for a solution.

[Spinflight]

All I can tell you is that I know of a real life case where your assertion didn't hold true.

He had invested a large sum ( he is wealthy by UK standards but not by Swiss) in order to build 6 hi-tech and spacious flats and wished to use one for himself.

He was firmly but politely refused, in 2011 or thereabouts.

[Chalalala]

to give my two cents on the OP's question:

one problem for the Brexit camp is that everybody agrees that 2 years is not nearly long enough to negotiate Britain's exit (it took the EU and Canada over 5 years to negotiate a much simpler agreement). Another problem is that there is a big anti-Brexit majority in Parliament.

with my cynical hat on, I could see this going one of two ways:

1. Cameron triggers Article 50 asap. Would put Britain in a very weak position in negotiations, they'd need a fast agreement and would need every EU country to agree to it - not a good place to be, which is why Leave have been saying that Article 50 would need to be delayed until a plan is in place. But in this scenario Cameron would trigger Article 50 on purpose, to leave no realistic option but to join the EEA, which is the only standard trade agreement already available, and which is what the Remain camp would want in the event of a Brexit
   
   
2. There is a leadership challenge immediately after Brexit, with a new eurosceptic Tory leader who holds off on pulling the trigger immediately (again, what Leave have been saying they would do). Then, a lot of scrambling, talking and informal negotiating (assuming EU countries will want to negotiate informally, which I'm not sure why they would). Parliament could either try to push the EEA option, or try to buy time in the hope that the public will realise that the magical no-strings-attached-free-trade-deal is not materialising. Possibly a second referendum eventually, or maybe the issue drags on without clear progress for years. Not sure, my crystal ball is getting foggy by this point.

[MrsBlackthorn]

Except this argument falls apart because the Treasury have done - and published - detailed reviews of the potential options if we Brexit.

[MrsBlackthorn]

Soz, that was to a previous answer.

[Chalalala]

Spinflight I don't know about your friend's case, but this is directly from the Swiss government website:

On June 21 1999, the European Union and Switzerland signed seven bilateral agreements including the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons, which came into force on 1 June 2002. The right of free movement is complemented by the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, by the right to buy property, and by the coordination of social security systems. The same rules also apply to citizens of EFTA member states. (...)
The Free Movement of Persons Agreement and its additional protocol lift restrictions on EU citizens wishing to live or work in Switzerland. The same rules apply to citizens of EFTA states.

www.sem.admin.ch/sem/en/home/themen/fza_schweiz-eu-efta.html

About 25% of the Swiss population was born outside of Switzerland (highest population in the Western world, alongside Australia)

[Bolograph]

The Free Movement of Persons Agreement and its additional protocol lift restrictions on EU citizens wishing to live or work in Switzerland.

Taking the Swiss government's statement at face value is pretty naive. From friends I have who have lived in Switzerland, the Federal Government giveth while the Cantons taketh away, and your life is made extremely difficult by local regulations (I can't remember the detailed examples, but they were all things that would be easy if you'd lived in a village all your life, and hard if you hadn't). Most of them stayed there for a few years (there's a couple of universities that are very big in my field) and then left, because it was too much like hard work to try to establish permanent residence.

[MrsBlackthorn]

Switzerland is a great example of what could happen to us if we quit the EU. The country voted in a referendum to reduce immigration from the EU. The EU didn't agree, so it simply said no. Since Switzerland isn't in the EU, it doesn't make the rules; it needs the the EU more than the EU needs it.

The result is that that the rules haven't changed - what the people of Switzerland think is irrelevant. If Switzerland was an EU member they could use their influence to change the rules.

[Spinflight]

"Except this argument falls apart because the Treasury have done - and published - detailed reviews of the potential options if we Brexit."

As instructed by project fear. A purely partisan and bounded effort taking the worst case scenarios and expounding on them 30 years hence.

Feel free to easily find detailed rebuttals of the scenario's presented. Basically a dodgy dossier.

No my point stands and isn't limited to economic projections. What, for instance, of intellectual property in the case of Brexit. How would or should policy change? The IPO has carried out no work to assess the likely impact as it has specifically been ordered not to.

Please show some policy proposals from any ministry which detail the likely effects, this is the daily grind of the civil service yet is entirely absent for an eventuality which polls tell us is a 50 / 50 chance.

Do you, MrsBlackthorn, not agree with me that this represents a level of negligence unheard of in modern times?

[Bolograph]

Except this argument falls apart because the Treasury have done - and published - detailed reviews of the potential options if we Brexit.

Brought to you by the same civil service that told us about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, ready to launch at 45 minutes' notice.

[Winterbiscuit]

Once other countries see through the EU and vote to leave as well, they will be keen to sort out trade with Britain.

[Chalalala]

Taking the Swiss government's statement at face value is pretty naive.

Depends what you're trying to show. I was trying to show that Switzerland does have free movement with the EU. I think the Swiss government is a pretty decent source to make a point about Swiss laws.

If you're saying that "yes there is free movement in theory, but in practice it doesn't mean much since the EU citizens don't stay" - then it's a different argument. To which I would reply that in 2014, Switzerland had 1.3 million permanent residents from the EU/EFTA country. Out of a total population of 8 million.

www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/01/07/blank/key/01/01.html

To put this in perspective, that's 16% of the Swiss population who are permanent resident EU citizens. That's not even counting the EU workers who live in Switzerland without being permanent residents, of course (which as you point out can be tricky to achieve). In the UK, the entire immigrant population (counting everyone - EU, non-EU, permanent, non permanent) is about 12%.

[Spinflight]

"If Switzerland was an EU member they could use their influence to change the rules."

Clearly they have their own rules, as my mate's experience showed. I always thought of him as one of the wealthiest people I knew but he was a mere pauper by Swiss standards.

Think on the whole I'd rather we were as rich and as able to control who came here than what we have at present.

[DorynownotFloundering]

So 2 years of uncertainty and economic mayhem while our terms of leaving are negotiated ?

Deep joy 😄

[Bolograph]

So 2 years of uncertainty and economic mayhem while our terms of leaving are negotiated ?

Stuck record. We need to make a positive case for staying, because people have tuned out the "oh, it's going to be a disaster". This is about practical politics over the next 14 days, and sneering at people you don't agreeing with as being idiots isn't practical politics as Labour are going to find in 2020.

Again: the claims that if we don't do what experts say it will be a disaster were made about entering the Euro, which proved that the experts didn't know shit. The experts who, it's also worth pointing out, are such brilliant forecasters that the financial crisis escaped them or, for the more pessimistic, was just one of the 26 financial disasters they predicted.

The key points are solidarity, internationalism, open optimism and a brighter future versus managed decline, insular inward looking xenophobia and isolationism. It's an emotional case for in, because it's an emotional case for out. What is being tried by too many remainers is "your marriage may be unhappy, but think of the nice carpets you'll be able to buy with your combined income?". It's not working.

[MrsBlackthorn]

I agree the emotional case needs to be made. I don't want to be part of an inward-looking island; I want to be part of an open and internationalist partnership.

The debate so far has been too focused on technicalities and financial models

[Chalalala]

The key points are solidarity, internationalism, open optimism and a brighter future versus managed decline, insular inward looking xenophobia and isolationism. It's an emotional case for in, because it's an emotional case for out. What is being tried by too many remainers is "your marriage may be unhappy, but think of the nice carpets you'll be able to buy with your combined income?". It's not working.

I agree. When it comes down to it I'm not pro-EU for economic reasons, even though I find myself making the economic case again and again on these boards. I'm pro-EU because I believe solidarity is better than nationalism, because there's something wonderful about uniting countries that have been fighting each other for centuries, because despite everything I think the EU is still our best shot at building a social alternative to globalised market forces. And because I feel European.

I don't feel legitimate making this case on here though, partly because I'm not British, partly because in my experience political idealism doesn't resonate with most Brits. (Which in some ways I admire, there's also something to be said for solid pragmatism)

Also, the emotional case for Brexit is also backed up by false "common sense" anti-immigration arguments, and I think it's important that they be challenged.

[purits]

I don't want to be part of an inward-looking island; I want to be part of an open and internationalist partnership.

It's the Remainers who are inward-looking. They seem to think that everything starts and ends with the EU. I want to be part of an open and internationalist country: there is plenty of Rest Of The World to trade with. I want us to trade with the future, not only a moribund and dying EU.

[purits]

We used to have lots of international trade agreements - with the Commonwealth, natch. The EU stopped those and said that we had to trade with them instead. Isn't 'solidarity' a great thing for them.

[Bolograph]

political idealism doesn't resonate with most Brits.

Technocratic arguments resonate even less. Partly because post-WMD and both-crash no-one believes a word that government "experts" say. But mostly because it's bollocks: for many Indians, remaining as a British colony would have been economically sensible in the short to medium term. People connect with ideas, and telling them that it doesn't matter if things they don't like happen so long as food is a few percent cheaper doesn't help.

Here's a thought experiment. Suppose I could prove to you that something right thinking people would regard as utterly unacceptable (say, expelling anyone whose grandparents were not British citizens) would make housing affordable, create jobs and improve the NHS. Thought experiment, obviously: it's bollocks, of course. Would that justify voting for it?

All over the US, poor Republican voters vote repeatedly for grim despots who send their children to pointless wars, allow their jobs and futures to stagnate and deny them healthcare. But so long as guns are as legal as they want abortion to be illegal, and them dang godless homosexualists can't marry, it's all good. They are voting against their economic interests (I was going to say "class interests" but I'm not selling Socialist Worker) but for "values" and "beliefs".

We are committing political suicide if we believe that, outside the audience at an Eddie Izzard gig London, there are not a lot of people who would happily see themselves a bit, or quite a lot, poorer so long as they could have back the social cohesion that they believe was present in some imagined white, wife-beating golden age.

[Winterbiscuit]

I agree that the Little EU is inward-looking. Just being large doesn't make it better in its plans. It's old-fashioned, failing and blinkered. We need to take our part in the whole, globalised world economy and politics as an independent country.

[Chalalala]

I want to be part of an open and internationalist country: there is plenty of Rest Of The World to trade with.

The Brexit vision is that of an independent Britain competing on its own in a free-market globalised economy. Free trade is all well and good, but the problem with purely economic relationships is that they don't give a damn about human rights, workers' right, equality or fairness. So they encourage a race to the bottom where every country tries to undercut everyone else. To avoid these side effects, markets are not enough, and national political will is not enough, because if you unilaterally decide to be a decent place, it puts you at a disadvantage against everyone else who's not.

That's what the EU brings. It's a vast free-trade zone where everyone also agrees to respect basic principles of human rights and workers' rights. Multilateral disarmament in the race to the bottom, if you will. That's why it's a positive choice for solidarity and cooperation, against national individualism.

[purits]

Gosh, Chalalala, does that mean that there are no thriving countries outside the EU?

Of course not. Your argument is bollocks! We go for a RollsRoyce economy, not a Mini one. Lots of people come to the UK for education - not because it's cheap but because it's amongst the best. We are a decent place: a lot of companies like to trade from here because they know that, basically, the UK is on the level - the system works, we stick to the law, don't take bribes, etc.
Let the idiots race to the bottom and we'll take the high road.

Remainers annoy me with their negative, timorous view. Have some self-belief!