Uk Referendum on The EU Announced for 23rd June.

[Crazedwraith]

Pretty much as expected.

Britain will vote on whether to remain in the EU on Thursday 23 June, Prime Minister David Cameron has said.
The prime minister made his historic announcement in Downing Street after briefing the cabinet.
He said he would be campaigning to remain in a reformed EU - and described the vote as one of the biggest decisions "in our lifetimes".
Ministers immediately divided up into the leave and remain camps as the campaigns got under way in earnest.

Home Secretary Theresa May heads the list of those who have announced they will campaign to stay - but Justice Secretary Michael Gove has signed up to the leave campaign.
Leave campaigners are also hoping London Mayor Boris Johnson will join their cause - but he has yet to declare where he stands.
In his statement, Mr Cameron warned that leaving the European Union would be a "leap in the dark" as he urged voters to back his reform deal.
"Those who want to leave Europe cannot tell you if British businesses would be able to access Europe's free trade single market, or if working people's jobs are safe, or how much prices would rise. All they're offering is a risk at a time of uncertainty - a leap in the dark."
In a direct appeal to voters, he said: "The choice is in your hands - but my recommendation is clear. I believe that Britain will be safer, stronger and better off by remaining in a reformed European Union."
Other ministers to declare they will campaign to remain, following Mr Cameron's statement, were Business Secretary Sajid Javid - previously seen as a potential outer - International Development Secretary Justine Greening and Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin.
Commons leader Chris Grayling, Culture Secretary John Whittingdale, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers and employment minster Priti Patel have all joined the exit campaign.

Energy minister Andrea Leadsom - who is not a member of the cabinet - will also back the leave campaign.
Mr Cameron claims his EU reform deal - hammered out at a two-day summit in Brussels - will give the Britain "special status" within the bloc - tackling concerns over migrants getting "something for nothing" from the benefit system and exempting the country from the EU drive for "ever closer union".
But critics say it does nothing to tackle high levels of immigration or take back powers from Brussels, with UKIP leader Nigel Farage branding it "truly pathetic".
Alan Johnson, chair of Labour In for Britain, said the party would be "united in making the case that Britain is better off in Europe".
"Our EU membership brings Britain jobs, investment, trade and keeps us safe. Leaving the EU would put all that at risk and diminish Britain's influence in the world. It was pressure from Labour that meant David Cameron has been prevented from trading away rights at work in this deal and we can now get on with our campaign to keep Britain in Europe."

I have a sinking feeling we'll be leaving. Especially with David Cameron arguing for it.

[Sharp-kun]

Unfortunately for me the choice is:

1) Less Europe
2) No Europe

Neither of which I want.

[Thanas]

If Britain leaves after having been guaranteed special rights no other member state can expect, then they deserve whatever happens to them after they leave.

[madd0ct0r]

ugh. if we do leave i imagine celtic devolution will kick up a notch again. Brussels might be an undemocratic distant bunch of political elites, but so is westminster, and only one of the two is not actively shitting on us at the moment.

[Dartzap]

I was bloody astounded that the summit gave anything to Cameron, should have told him to feck off.

I suspect the vast bulk of people will vote to remain, with the shouty minority doing dismally as usual. Too much to lose, not much to gain in my view.

[Edi]

Well, we'll see what happens in June. By all indications I have seen in news about the UK, it seems the majority opposes the EU or it's at best a close shave in England, whereas in Scotland for example it is more popular. I don't follow British media that actively, though, so I could be mistaken.

How does it look to those of you who live there?

I'm inclined to agree with Thanas, though, if the UK leaves after all the concessions they have extracted, I wouldn't be surprised if they were just frozen out of the EU markets and completely kicked out so they would have to negotiate everything from scratch. I don't think the financial sector for one would be too thrilled, because there are other European exchanges outside the City of London who wouldn't mind taking a bigger role in those markets.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Indeed. There are parts of the EU I don't particularly like (like why it needs it's own President and foreign minister for one) but the free trade and travel areas are too good to lose.

[ray245]

I was bloody astounded that the summit gave anything to Cameron, should have told him to feck off.

I suspect the vast bulk of people will vote to remain, with the shouty minority doing dismally as usual. Too much to lose, not much to gain in my view.

I'm not too sure about that. There's a lot of people who disliked the EU, even after acknowledging the benefits it brings. The desire to leave the EU is strong from the left AND the right.

[Dartzap]

I live not so far from Cornwall, the only county in the country that is so shit poor that it qualifies for Objective 1 funding. Not only that, but it's contributed to a large amount of infrastructure in my own neck of the woods, when central gov wouldn't have done.

People know about it to, mores the point. The Mail and Express are highly visible to those people looking in from elsewhere, but it's not the whole story on the local level.

[Tribble]

What were the final concessions offered by the EU?

If the UK votes to remain, is the EU obligated to follow through with the deal? In my (limited) understanding of how the EU works, any alternations would have to be ratified by all the members via treaty amendment. What happens if the UK votes to remain, and some EU members refuse to go along with it?

If the UK votes to leave, would that actually happen? In the UK parliament is sovereign, and no matter how much Cameron says the referendum is binding the reality is it's not. IMO it would probably take an act in parliament before the UK formally starts the withdrawal process. Is it possible in the event of a "yes" vote to leave for the UK government to drag things out and essentially ignore the results?

[Eternal_Freedom]

I don't think the referendum will be binding, but if it set up like the Scottish Independence vote, it will be trivially easy to see a breakdown of votes per constituency, and it would be political suicide for an MP to vote to stay when a majority of his or her constituents voted to leave, or vice-versa.

[Tribble]

I don't think the referendum will be binding, but if it set up like the Scottish Independence vote, it will be trivially easy to see a breakdown of votes per constituency, and it would be political suicide for an MP to vote to stay when a majority of his or her constituents voted to leave, or vice-versa.

Assuming that they table a bill right after the referendum, of course. But it could easily be stalled for a few years with studies, committees, negotiations on how a withdrawal would occur etc. IIRC the EU withdrawal process can be a max of 2 years, but IMO the clock wouldn't actually start ticking until the UK formally legislated its intention to withdraw. It'd be very easy (and tempting) for Cameron to kick the can down the road a few years and let the next PM deal with it. And the next PM could argue that the referendum is not binding on his/her government since it occurred a few years ago, things have changed since then and another one would have to be held sometime in the future in order to "resolve" the issue.

[Sharp-kun]

I don't think the referendum will be binding, but if it set up like the Scottish Independence vote, it will be trivially easy to see a breakdown of votes per constituency, and it would be political suicide for an MP to vote to stay when a majority of his or her constituents voted to leave, or vice-versa.

I feel it would be political suicide to ignore the results given how much as a fuss is being made about it by some sides.

[Hillary]

Well, we'll see what happens in June. By all indications I have seen in news about the UK, it seems the majority opposes the EU or it's at best a close shave in England, whereas in Scotland for example it is more popular. I don't follow British media that actively, though, so I could be mistaken.

How does it look to those of you who live there?

Actually, that's not the case. The majority in all four countries of the UK are in favour of staying in - Northern Ireland the highest (75%), then Scotland (64%), Wales and England (52%).

Outside of geography, the vote is split along two demographics; age (the younger you are, the more likely you are to want to stay in) and education (the higher your qualification, the more likely you are to vote to stay in).

Of course, the older you are, the more likely you are to vote, so it isn't a foregone conclusion. We can only hope that there's a high turnout.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/fac ... t-eu/22312

I'm inclined to agree with Thanas, though, if the UK leaves after all the concessions they have extracted, I wouldn't be surprised if they were just frozen out of the EU markets and completely kicked out so they would have to negotiate everything from scratch. I don't think the financial sector for one would be too thrilled, because there are other European exchanges outside the City of London who wouldn't mind taking a bigger role in those markets.

Unlikely I would think, as this would hit the rest of the EU pretty hard as well - it would be a case of cutting their nose to spite their face. Let's hope we don't get to find out.

[Ubiquitous]

The Labour working class vote may hold the key. They have been the worst affected by EU immigration. Let's see how hard Corbyn campaigns to stay in the EU.

[Thanas]

Unlikely I would think, as this would hit the rest of the EU pretty hard as well - it would be a case of cutting their nose to spite their face. Let's hope we don't get to find out.

Merkel is damn vindictive if given the opportunity. Hollande too. Both have a lot invested here. Both also want to curtail the city of Londdon. Why wouldn't they jump at the chance to do so?

[Edi]

I'm inclined to agree with Thanas, though, if the UK leaves after all the concessions they have extracted, I wouldn't be surprised if they were just frozen out of the EU markets and completely kicked out so they would have to negotiate everything from scratch. I don't think the financial sector for one would be too thrilled, because there are other European exchanges outside the City of London who wouldn't mind taking a bigger role in those markets.

Unlikely I would think, as this would hit the rest of the EU pretty hard as well - it would be a case of cutting their nose to spite their face. Let's hope we don't get to find out.

If the UK decided to leave, there would be zero incentive to let the EU financial markets be controlled from outside the EU and every reason under the sun to both move them under EU auspices and reduce the influence of a rival market in the process. Especially since the American financial markets and the City of London were instrumental in creating the previous crisis. Not that there wasn't blame to go around elsewhere, but those were the main culprits.

So while it might be painful as a transition, in case of Brexit there are more very good reasons to do it than not. Status quo and tradition are bad arguments for maintaining something if all the underlying factors change.

[Guardsman Bass]

Is this over immigration? It almost seems a bit redundant, giving that a bunch of EU member countries are violating the Schengen Agreement without any serious repercussions right now anyways.

[ray245]

Is this over immigration? It almost seems a bit redundant, giving that a bunch of EU member countries are violating the Schengen Agreement without any serious repercussions right now anyways.

Setting up border checks does not mean they are restricting the right of EU citizens from migrating.

[Netko]

Unlikely I would think, as this would hit the rest of the EU pretty hard as well - it would be a case of cutting their nose to spite their face. Let's hope we don't get to find out.

Not really. Most of the eastern Member States had a higher impact from the imposition of sanctions on Russia then the impact the EU as a whole would have from losing the UK trade and the countries with the highest impact in this case would be the ones most ready to absorb it (Western and Northern European). The eastern Member States weathered that just fine in general with a combination of local and EU supplementary funding to affected sectors (and you better believe a similar scheme would be put in place for the most Brexit affected sectors).

And as far as vindictiveness towards non-members, there is always the example of Switzerland's EU-supplied scientific funding tanking due to their imposition of limits of free movement (https://www.theguardian.com/science/occ ... -the-swiss). You know who the Swiss immigration change of rules were most affecting? Croatia, a new member state with 4.5 million people (i.e. cca 1% of EU population) which in almost any calculation is insignificant.

But for the EU there is a sharp divide between members and non-members - and the UK leaving would disrupt a lot more and in the "important" countries then the Swiss ban on free movement on 1% of EU citizens.

[Tribble]

IMO it's in the best interests of the EU for the UK to leave. Not only will the European financial centre shift over to the continent instead of London, the EU wouldn't have to put up with the UK's constant whining any longer, and can head towards further integration without interference. Plus, bonus points for removing a major US ally from meddling in continental affairs. It's in the best interests for the UK to leave to, as from my understanding they tend to get out-voted on most issues anyways, and it's pretty clear that they are not interested in becoming more integrated with the rest of the EU.

[Purple]

Is more integration really a good thing though? There are plenty of people who would argue that the EU is already integrated more than enough.

[Zaune]

Is this over immigration? It almost seems a bit redundant, giving that a bunch of EU member countries are violating the Schengen Agreement without any serious repercussions right now anyways.

Only in the sense that the Mexican border wall is about immigration. Migrants are a convenient and natural scapegoat in times of strife regardless of whether or not the facts actually back it up, in Britain more so than most countries because when we're bigoted we're usually bigoted about everyone who isn't us, not just the brown people.

[His Divine Shadow]

I want them to leave because I don't want them to have all those special privileges nobody else gets.

[ray245]

Is more integration really a good thing though? There are plenty of people who would argue that the EU is already integrated more than enough.

The goal of the EU is to create a multi-state entity like the US, and that's the aim of many European countries. The UK seems mostly interested for its economic benefits and not for what the EU is actually about.