Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brexit looks set to be the biggest non-election political bett

SystemSystem Posts: 11,005
edited January 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Brexit looks set to be the biggest non-election political betting even market ever

Lots of bookies of different sorts have ranges of markets on Brexit from PaddyPower’s “What foodstuffs will be rationed first in 2019?” to the above bet on whether or not the UK will leave the EU on March 29th.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,337
    And still no one has a clue as to how it turns out...
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,215
    Second like leave
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,152
    3rd, like The Brexit Party in March's GE :smiley:
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,337
    I am beginning to get the impression that AOC is one of the few US politicians who might hold her own on PB...
    https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1086483485668319233
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,215
    edited January 2019
    Only 4/1 that we could be heading for fuel rationing?

    Will we end up playing Monopoly by candlelight several nights a week, and it will indeed be the early 70s once again?
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,152
    IanB2 said:

    Only 4/1 that we could be heading for fuel rationing?

    Will we end up playing Monopoly by candlelight several nights a week, and it will indeed be the early 70s once again?

    Too long you think?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,337
    IanB2 said:

    Only 4/1 that we could be heading for fuel rationing?

    Will we end up playing Monopoly by candlelight several nights a week, and it will indeed be the early 70s once again?

    Once Jezza takes power, that will be State Monopoly....
  • Options
    Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Nigelb said:

    I am beginning to get the impression that AOC is one of the few US politicians who might hold her own on PB...
    https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1086483485668319233

    If only she was a few years older, then Trump would've met his match.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789

    What are the odds that the government will be rationing dog, rat, water, firewood, and dung?
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,209
    edited January 2019
    fpt re Norway

    Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.

    Nor are they subject to the ECJ.

    Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.

    I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).

    Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who dislike foreigners voted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,152
    Sean_F said:


    What are the odds that the government will be rationing dog, rat, water, firewood, and dung?

    Leaves cats with a free run though...
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,280
    edited January 2019
    Can a bookie put up a market on Daniel Kawczynski being charged with treason for consorting with a foreign power?

    'Cause if they do, I'll make a complaint to the rozzers and we're all winners.

    https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1087691731095699456
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,152
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/right-turn-will-take-tories-into-the-wilderness-bn39g2zdj

    I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095

    3rd, like The Brexit Party in March's GE :smiley:

    I think you do them down.....
  • Options

    Can a bookie put up a market on Daniel Kawczynski being charged with treason for consorting with a foreign power?

    'Cause if they do, I'll make a complaint to the rozzers and we're all winners.

    https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1087691731095699456

    You want to lay the same charge in front of Grieve and Soubry who had private meetings with the EU last year to discuss scuppering Brexit?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    edited January 2019

    Can a bookie put up a market on Daniel Kawczynski being charged with treason for consorting with a foreign power?

    'Cause if they do, I'll make a complaint to the rozzers and we're all winners.

    https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1087691731095699456

    Except - your "complaint" does not = a charge of treason.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    fpt re Norway


    Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.

    Nor are they subject to the ECJ.

    Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.

    I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).

    Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who dislike foreigners voted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.
    Not at all. EFTA members have full involvement at all stages of the development of new regs including proposing them in the first place. The only issue as I say is the final vote.

    But more importantly they are represented on the bodies that actually discuss and devise rules way above the EU level. We have no say at all on those bodies because we are 'represented' by the EU. Norway has full representation and voting rights.

    And the EFTA court is always by unanimity.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    Cyclefree said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/right-turn-will-take-tories-into-the-wilderness-bn39g2zdj

    I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....

    Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,011
    edited January 2019

    TOPPING said:

    fpt re Norway


    Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.

    Nor are they subject to the ECJ.

    Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.

    I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).

    Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who dislike foreigners voted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.
    Not at all. EFTA members have full involvement at all stages of the development of new regs including proposing them in the first place. The only issue as I say is the final vote.

    But more importantly they are represented on the bodies that actually discuss and devise rules way above the EU level. We have no say at all on those bodies because we are 'represented' by the EU. Norway has full representation and voting rights.

    And the EFTA court is always by unanimity.
    Imagine every member of the EU joined EFTA/EEA instead. How would it work?
  • Options

    That's gonna be some hard border....</blockquote

    Isn't porn usage highest in the more Republican areas? Taxing your own? Fairy nuff, I suppose....
  • Options

    Can a bookie put up a market on Daniel Kawczynski being charged with treason for consorting with a foreign power?

    'Cause if they do, I'll make a complaint to the rozzers and we're all winners.

    https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1087691731095699456

    Except - your "complaint" does not = a charge of treason.
    I know, that's why I said we'll all be winners.

    It'll be one of those things that will always appear on a DBS check for him.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,209

    TOPPING said:

    fpt re Norway


    Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.

    Nor are they subject to the ECJ.

    Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.

    I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).

    Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who dislike foreigners voted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.
    Not at all. EFTA members have full involvement at all stages of the development of new regs including proposing them in the first place. The only issue as I say is the final vote.

    But more importantly they are represented on the bodies that actually discuss and devise rules way above the EU level. We have no say at all on those bodies because we are 'represented' by the EU. Norway has full representation and voting rights.

    And the EFTA court is always by unanimity.
    You are playing up their influence. They are invited onto especially the technical committees but are excluded from the latter stages of the actual rule making. They have input but that is all. It is not binding or mandatory or anything else. Try selling that to the British Public. They will think you are having a laugh. Not able to vote on the final version of the rules? You must be kidding. Is what they will say.

    And rightly so. Although of course I'd take Norway now given where we are. Sadly it doesn't seem likely so these discussions are moot.

    And of course being rule takers and having no final say is something that anyone could have said would be the outcome of us voting to leave the EU and now you are citing that as a best case.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Cyclefree said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/right-turn-will-take-tories-into-the-wilderness-bn39g2zdj

    I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....

    Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....
    Surely they'll need to dig them up rather than tie them up?
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,578
    Cheese 18/1

    No Good Brie!!!
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,152

    Cyclefree said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/right-turn-will-take-tories-into-the-wilderness-bn39g2zdj

    I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....

    Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....
    Isn't that what the Tories rather arrogantly thought in 2017? That they could put all those UKIP voters in their column. Turns out they couldn't.

    The Tories are behaving like Labour in the early 1980's: prizing ideological purity above common-sense, trying to appease those who will never be satisfied, coming across as obsessed and a bit deranged, and looking irrelevant to the concerns of most voters. Plus they are in the process of destroying their main USP - that they are competent and can be trusted to run the economy more efficiently than Labour.

    Currently, they can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,280
    edited January 2019
    These maps still worry me, especially the ebony stuff in a lot of the Southern states.

    What Americans like to search/view on Pornhub.

    image

    and

    image

    https://www.iflscience.com/technology/these-maps-show-the-most-popular-porn-searches-in-each-us-state/
  • Options
    SunnyJimSunnyJim Posts: 1,106
    edited January 2019


    Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....

    Surely they'll need to dig them up rather than tie them up?

    Classy as usual.

  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    fpt re Norway


    Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.

    Nor are they subject to the ECJ.

    Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.

    I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).

    Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who dislike foreigners voted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.
    Not at all. EFTA members have full involvement at all stages of the development of new regs including proposing them in the first place. The only issue as I say is the final vote.

    But more importantly they are represented on the bodies that actually discuss and devise rules way above the EU level. We have no say at all on those bodies because we are 'represented' by the EU. Norway has full representation and voting rights.

    And the EFTA court is always by unanimity.
    You are playing up their influence. They are invited onto especially the technical committees but are excluded from the latter stages of the actual rule making. They have input but that is all. It is not binding or mandatory or anything else. Try selling that to the British Public. They will think you are having a laugh. Not able to vote on the final version of the rules? You must be kidding. Is what they will say.

    And rightly so. Although of course I'd take Norway now given where we are. Sadly it doesn't seem likely so these discussions are moot.

    And of course being rule takers and having no final say is something that anyone could have said would be the outcome of us voting to leave the EU and now you are citing that as a best case.
    Well of course I don't recognise your description but to claim I have somehow changed my tune is kind of strange given I was cheerleading for Norway from the very start of this process back long before 2015. Norway is better than an FTA. It is better than No Deal and it is better than Remain (by a very long way). It should have been our objective from the start rather than some half arsed fall back position.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789

    These maps still worry me, especially the ebony stuff in a lot of the Southern states.

    image

    and

    image

    https://www.iflscience.com/technology/these-maps-show-the-most-popular-porn-searches-in-each-us-state/

    I'd have thought the most popular category in the South would be "Sister."
  • Options
    SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,578
    I guess folks could just pop over the border to buy their computers in Mexico.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095

    Cyclefree said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/right-turn-will-take-tories-into-the-wilderness-bn39g2zdj

    I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....

    Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....
    Surely they'll need to dig them up rather than tie them up?
    Nah. The gammons will be the last to go, when food rationing kicks in... All those low BMI gym-junkies gonna go first....
  • Options
    FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047

    Can a bookie put up a market on Daniel Kawczynski being charged with treason for consorting with a foreign power?

    'Cause if they do, I'll make a complaint to the rozzers and we're all winners.

    https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1087691731095699456

    Except - your "complaint" does not = a charge of treason.
    See what happens when we let these bloody east Europeans in?
  • Options

    TOPPING said:

    fpt re Norway


    Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.

    Nor are they subject to the ECJ.

    Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.

    I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).

    Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who dislike foreigners voted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.
    Not at all. EFTA members have full involvement at all stages of the development of new regs including proposing them in the first place. The only issue as I say is the final vote.

    But more importantly they are represented on the bodies that actually discuss and devise rules way above the EU level. We have no say at all on those bodies because we are 'represented' by the EU. Norway has full representation and voting rights.

    And the EFTA court is always by unanimity.
    Imagine every member of the EU joined EFTA/EEA instead. How would it work?
    It would work like EFTA. There would be need for the EEA at that point because that is simply the bridge to join EFTA and the EU.

    It would mean no CFP, no CAP, no Ever Closer Union. no MEPs and none of the trappings of a state. Sounds bloody great to me.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,337
    Danny565 said:

    Nigelb said:

    I am beginning to get the impression that AOC is one of the few US politicians who might hold her own on PB...
    https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1086483485668319233

    If only she was a few years older, then Trump would've met his match.
    No, that's Mueller...
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,011

    TOPPING said:

    fpt re Norway


    Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.

    Nor are they subject to the ECJ.

    Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.

    I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).

    Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who dislike foreigners voted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.
    Not at all. EFTA members have full involvement at all stages of the development of new regs including proposing them in the first place. The only issue as I say is the final vote.

    But more importantly they are represented on the bodies that actually discuss and devise rules way above the EU level. We have no say at all on those bodies because we are 'represented' by the EU. Norway has full representation and voting rights.

    And the EFTA court is always by unanimity.
    Imagine every member of the EU joined EFTA/EEA instead. How would it work?
    It would work like EFTA. There would be need for the EEA at that point because that is simply the bridge to join EFTA and the EU.

    It would mean no CFP, no CAP, no Ever Closer Union. no MEPs and none of the trappings of a state. Sounds bloody great to me.
    So you're happy to abolish the single market?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,337
    That's going to alienate a significant part of their base...
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,079

    Well of course I don't recognise your description but to claim I have somehow changed my tune is kind of strange given I was cheerleading for Norway from the very start of this process back long before 2015. Norway is better than an FTA. It is better than No Deal and it is better than Remain (by a very long way). It should have been our objective from the start rather than some half arsed fall back position.

    I wouldn't give up on Norway if I were you. Michael Gove likes Norway and he is going to be strategic supremo on the trade talks, once this withdrawal agreement gets ratified and we leave.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,209

    Well of course I don't recognise your description but to claim I have somehow changed my tune is kind of strange given I was cheerleading for Norway from the very start of this process back long before 2015. Norway is better than an FTA. It is better than No Deal and it is better than Remain (by a very long way). It should have been our objective from the start rather than some half arsed fall back position.

    I am aware that you always championed Norway. Where do I say you have changed your tune.

    But the fact is that your fellow travellers were not as mellow as you regarding, for example, immigration and now are deemed to want a break with every element of the EU and certainly have no truck for another European alphabet soup of association.

    So actually, whatever you want, matters not a jot at the moment. The people you voted with want something completely different. And yes I understand also that any version of Leave to you is better than Remain but what you fail to understand is that your co-Leavers believe that Norway is remaining. No wonder we're so fucked.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Wait - he isn't moving it to Frankfurt or Paris ?

  • Options
    I doubt this is Brexit-related. Most of Dyson's business is in Asia. What it does show, though, is that businesses will locate where it suits them best - as we will certainly find out once we are out of the Single Market and Customs Union.

  • Options
    Who said:

    "What is clear to me, however, is that the decision of the electorate in the Referendum must be respected and that I should support a reasoned process to give effect to it. It was unfortunate that during the autumn quite a few people lost their heads over the triggering of Article 50 and came to believe that this would in some way be thwarted by Parliament or by the judiciary in their judgment that only Parliament could trigger a profound constitutional change of this kind. These criticisms were entirely misplaced and the proper process followed since has ensured that our system works correctly to give effect to the referendum decision through Parliament with proper scrutiny of its details.

    We have also been fortunate to have a Prime Minister with the determination both to see the complex challenges of Brexit through and to do this with a constant eye to maximising opportunities and minimising the risks involved to our economic well being, security and quality of life.

    As someone who has always advocated a close relationship between the UK and the European Union, I accept the result of the 2016 Referendum. I therefore strongly support the Prime Minister’s determination to secure a negotiated arrangement for leaving the EU and for forging a new trading relationship for the future, providing certainty for trade and business whilst giving us control of migration and releasing us from the direct effect of EU Law. I also believe that the people of our country will benefit from a close continuing relationship with a strong EU and I will work to help build these important links for our future. I very much hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will be able to achieve something close to the goals she set out in her speech at Lancaster House in February."
  • Options
    XenonXenon Posts: 471
    They probably wouldn't need to relocate if we had been able to form free trade links in Asia rather than having been stuck in the backwards looking EU for the past 40 years.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789

    Who said:

    "What is clear to me, however, is that the decision of the electorate in the Referendum must be respected and that I should support a reasoned process to give effect to it. It was unfortunate that during the autumn quite a few people lost their heads over the triggering of Article 50 and came to believe that this would in some way be thwarted by Parliament or by the judiciary in their judgment that only Parliament could trigger a profound constitutional change of this kind. These criticisms were entirely misplaced and the proper process followed since has ensured that our system works correctly to give effect to the referendum decision through Parliament with proper scrutiny of its details.

    We have also been fortunate to have a Prime Minister with the determination both to see the complex challenges of Brexit through and to do this with a constant eye to maximising opportunities and minimising the risks involved to our economic well being, security and quality of life.

    As someone who has always advocated a close relationship between the UK and the European Union, I accept the result of the 2016 Referendum. I therefore strongly support the Prime Minister’s determination to secure a negotiated arrangement for leaving the EU and for forging a new trading relationship for the future, providing certainty for trade and business whilst giving us control of migration and releasing us from the direct effect of EU Law. I also believe that the people of our country will benefit from a close continuing relationship with a strong EU and I will work to help build these important links for our future. I very much hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will be able to achieve something close to the goals she set out in her speech at Lancaster House in February."

    Dominic Grieve. But, he had his fingers crossed behind his back.
  • Options

    I doubt this is Brexit-related. Most of Dyson's business is in Asia. What it does show, though, is that businesses will locate where it suits them best - as we will certainly find out once we are out of the Single Market and Customs Union.

    They were doing so whilst we were inside as well. Except they were doing it with EU money to help the moves.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Scott_P said:
    Worse than hypocrisy surely. Do damage and fuck off leaving others to deal with the aftermath.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    edited January 2019
    Mr. Meeks, as entertainingly inept as ever to hear from politicians on net porn.

    Will it be known as the fap fee? The tallywhacker tax? The lust levy?

    Edited extra bit: and will the construction project be known as the Wanker's Wall?
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,918
    edited January 2019
    TOPPING said:

    Well of course I don't recognise your description but to claim I have somehow changed my tune is kind of strange given I was cheerleading for Norway from the very start of this process back long before 2015. Norway is better than an FTA. It is better than No Deal and it is better than Remain (by a very long way). It should have been our objective from the start rather than some half arsed fall back position.

    I am aware that you always championed Norway. Where do I say you have changed your tune.

    But the fact is that your fellow travellers were not as mellow as you regarding, for example, immigration and now are deemed to want a break with every element of the EU and certainly have no truck for another European alphabet soup of association.

    So actually, whatever you want, matters not a jot at the moment. The people you voted with want something completely different. And yes I understand also that any version of Leave to you is better than Remain but what you fail to understand is that your co-Leavers believe that Norway is remaining. No wonder we're so fucked.
    Sorry, the impression I got from your last posting was that you thought I was only switching to Norway now.

    To be fair whatever I wanted never mattered a jot in the first place. I am well aware that even most Remainers do not share my views on complete freedom of movement so I have always been reconciled to getting what scraps I can from the table.
  • Options

    TOPPING said:

    fpt re Norway


    Norway pay a fraction of what we pay. Nor are they just a rule taker. They have input into every level of decision making over new regulations bar the final vote and can influence rues far more from their position outside the EU than we can from inside.

    Nor are they subject to the ECJ.

    Basically the only thing you are right about is freedom of movement which I personally think is a good thing not a bad one.

    I think you're playing up their role a tadge, Richard. They are consulted in the early stages but as you say have no vote. And have no recourse. They are very much outsiders and rule-takers. And then they have it decided whether they include the EU regs into their own regs. So not ECJ but EFTA court (as we said prior to the referendum, we are now swapping one supranational european court for another so good luck with that).

    Oh and there is freedom of movement which matters to 99.5% of those who dislike foreigners voted to Leave. Yourself excepted, obvs, you all-welcoming guy, you.
    Not at all. EFTA members have full involvement at all stages of the development of new regs including proposing them in the first place. The only issue as I say is the final vote.

    But more importantly they are represented on the bodies that actually discuss and devise rules way above the EU level. We have no say at all on those bodies because we are 'represented' by the EU. Norway has full representation and voting rights.

    And the EFTA court is always by unanimity.
    Imagine every member of the EU joined EFTA/EEA instead. How would it work?
    It would work like EFTA. There would be need for the EEA at that point because that is simply the bridge to join EFTA and the EU.

    It would mean no CFP, no CAP, no Ever Closer Union. no MEPs and none of the trappings of a state. Sounds bloody great to me.
    So you're happy to abolish the single market?
    Yes. Or rather it doesn't bother me either way. 93% of the world is not in the single market and I do far more business outside the SM than I do inside.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Who said:

    Dominic Grieve. But, he had his fingers crossed behind his back.
    He said it when he believed Liam Fox who said he'd have all those trade deals lined up one second after Brexit.

    When facts change, opinions change as well.
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,987
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/right-turn-will-take-tories-into-the-wilderness-bn39g2zdj

    I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....

    Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....
    Isn't that what the Tories rather arrogantly thought in 2017? That they could put all those UKIP voters in their column. Turns out they couldn't.

    The Tories are behaving like Labour in the early 1980's: prizing ideological purity above common-sense, trying to appease those who will never be satisfied, coming across as obsessed and a bit deranged, and looking irrelevant to the concerns of most voters. Plus they are in the process of destroying their main USP - that they are competent and can be trusted to run the economy more efficiently than Labour.

    Currently, they can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
    Spot on.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,215
    edited January 2019

    TOPPING said:

    Well of course I don't recognise your description but to claim I have somehow changed my tune is kind of strange given I was cheerleading for Norway from the very start of this process back long before 2015. Norway is better than an FTA. It is better than No Deal and it is better than Remain (by a very long way). It should have been our objective from the start rather than some half arsed fall back position.

    I am aware that you always championed Norway. Where do I say you have changed your tune.

    But the fact is that your fellow travellers were not as mellow as you regarding, for example, immigration and now are deemed to want a break with every element of the EU and certainly have no truck for another European alphabet soup of association.

    So actually, whatever you want, matters not a jot at the moment. The people you voted with want something completely different. And yes I understand also that any version of Leave to you is better than Remain but what you fail to understand is that your co-Leavers believe that Norway is remaining. No wonder we're so fucked.
    Sorry, the impression I got from your last posting was that you thought I was only switching to Norway now.

    To be fair whatever I wanted never mattered a jot in the first place. I am well aware that even most Remainers do not share my views on complete freedom of movement so I have always been reconciled to getting what scraps I can from the table.
    If we leave, Norway isn't such a bad place to be. But even they call it "fax diplomacy" (surely soon to become email diplomacy) and it is also unclear whether Norway would welcome us supplanting its lead role in EFTA. And the CFP freedom will prove illusory as our fishermens' interests will surely be traded for something else, given that the industry is tiny and exports much of its catch to the EU anyway. The best thing about Norway is that it wouldn't be too difficult to rejoin.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/right-turn-will-take-tories-into-the-wilderness-bn39g2zdj

    I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....

    Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....
    Isn't that what the Tories rather arrogantly thought in 2017? That they could put all those UKIP voters in their column. Turns out they couldn't.

    The Tories are behaving like Labour in the early 1980's: prizing ideological purity above common-sense, trying to appease those who will never be satisfied, coming across as obsessed and a bit deranged, and looking irrelevant to the concerns of most voters. Plus they are in the process of destroying their main USP - that they are competent and can be trusted to run the economy more efficiently than Labour.

    Currently, they can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
    Except, in 2017, we had the two main parties pledging to implement Brexit....there wasn't a fag paper between them, so it wasn't a Brexit election at all.

    Next time? Next time there will be 17.4m pissed off voters if those pledges haven't been honoured. Let's see how good Magic Grandpa's tricks are next time.
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
  • Options
    Should we really expect anything else from a nation descended from criminals?

    Australia has called into question the UK’s hopes of joining a Pacific trade bloc, which had been considered by Theresa May to be a major post-Brexit opportunity over the coming years.

    Simon Birmingham, the Australian trade minister, said: “The UK is some distance from the Pacific, the last time I checked.” He was speaking on a trip to London, where he yesterday met Liam Fox, Britain’s international trade secretary.

    The prime minister and Dr Fox have repeatedly cited the 11-nation Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), with members including Australia, Canada, Japan and Mexico, as a possible target for the UK after it leaves the European Union.

    However, Mr Birmingham appeared to pour cold water on such aspirations, suggesting that neighbouring countries would be prioritised instead.

    He told an Australia-UK Chamber of Commerce event, in comments first reported by the Sydney Morning Herald: “I do think that, from the feedback of the other TPP nations, there is still a view of: let’s see the initial 11 [nations] all get through their ratification process, all become party to it, let’s perhaps deal with some of the other nations of interest in the Pacific region.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/australia-pours-water-on-uk-trade-bloc-hopes-5jl0gk522
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,097

    Can a bookie put up a market on Daniel Kawczynski being charged with treason for consorting with a foreign power?

    'Cause if they do, I'll make a complaint to the rozzers and we're all winners.

    https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1087691731095699456

    Does anyone know in what capacity he has made this formal request to the Polish government?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,215

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/right-turn-will-take-tories-into-the-wilderness-bn39g2zdj

    I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....

    Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....
    Isn't that what the Tories rather arrogantly thought in 2017? That they could put all those UKIP voters in their column. Turns out they couldn't.

    The Tories are behaving like Labour in the early 1980's: prizing ideological purity above common-sense, trying to appease those who will never be satisfied, coming across as obsessed and a bit deranged, and looking irrelevant to the concerns of most voters. Plus they are in the process of destroying their main USP - that they are competent and can be trusted to run the economy more efficiently than Labour.

    Currently, they can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
    Except, in 2017, we had the two main parties pledging to implement Brexit....there wasn't a fag paper between them, so it wasn't a Brexit election at all.

    Next time? Next time there will be 17.4m pissed off voters if those pledges haven't been honoured. Let's see how good Magic Grandpa's tricks are next time.
    Hopefully they will have four or five types of UKIP to choose from, just as looks looming in P'Boro
  • Options
    brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    Ahh, that EU powerhouse that is Singapore...
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Fenman said:
    For some definition of “hypocrisy” that is different to the correct one?
  • Options

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/right-turn-will-take-tories-into-the-wilderness-bn39g2zdj

    I expect the usual suspects will be on soon saying that the Tories can do without centrist voters.....

    Depends if they can tie up those 17.4m Leave voters....
    Isn't that what the Tories rather arrogantly thought in 2017? That they could put all those UKIP voters in their column. Turns out they couldn't.

    The Tories are behaving like Labour in the early 1980's: prizing ideological purity above common-sense, trying to appease those who will never be satisfied, coming across as obsessed and a bit deranged, and looking irrelevant to the concerns of most voters. Plus they are in the process of destroying their main USP - that they are competent and can be trusted to run the economy more efficiently than Labour.

    Currently, they can't be trusted to tie their own shoelaces.
    Except, in 2017, we had the two main parties pledging to implement Brexit....there wasn't a fag paper between them, so it wasn't a Brexit election at all.

    Next time? Next time there will be 17.4m pissed off voters if those pledges haven't been honoured. Let's see how good Magic Grandpa's tricks are next time.
    Get over it, you won
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,123
    Quite epic push polling by PP. Seems that they are not brave enough to have a none of the above category though.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Scott_P said:
    You mean the bilateral U.K.-Ireland deal that was floated a few days ago? Not a bad idea. Why don’t we do that instead of the backstop?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,789

    Sean_F said:

    Who said:

    Dominic Grieve. But, he had his fingers crossed behind his back.
    He said it when he believed Liam Fox who said he'd have all those trade deals lined up one second after Brexit.

    When facts change, opinions change as well.
    He believed Liam Fox?

    But, he's a clever man, a QC.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    You mean the bilateral U.K.-Ireland deal that was floated a few days ago? Not a bad idea. Why don’t we do that instead of the backstop?
    I think Ireland has to leave the EU though, to be able to negotiate that bi-lateral deal.

    Hmmm........
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,011
    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    You mean the bilateral U.K.-Ireland deal that was floated a few days ago? Not a bad idea. Why don’t we do that instead of the backstop?
    Because the content would be the same as the NI-only backstop, so the ERG and DUP would still hate it.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Who said:

    Dominic Grieve. But, he had his fingers crossed behind his back.
    He said it when he believed Liam Fox who said he'd have all those trade deals lined up one second after Brexit.

    When facts change, opinions change as well.
    He believed Liam Fox?

    But, he's a clever man, a QC.
    Grieve is honourable man, he took Fox at his word.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,215
    Stand by for resignations:

    Theresa May is set to reject Tory calls for her to give her ministers and MPs a free vote on an amendment to the Brexit motion being debated next week intended to stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal, government sources have indicated
  • Options
    TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    You mean the bilateral U.K.-Ireland deal that was floated a few days ago? Not a bad idea. Why don’t we do that instead of the backstop?
    Because the content would be the same as the NI-only backstop, so the ERG and DUP would still hate it.
    In that case it wouldn't pass parliament. Just like the NI-only backstop..

  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,011

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    You mean the bilateral U.K.-Ireland deal that was floated a few days ago? Not a bad idea. Why don’t we do that instead of the backstop?
    I think Ireland has to leave the EU though, to be able to negotiate that bi-lateral deal.

    Hmmm........
    No it doesn't. France has a bilateral customs union with Monaco. We could sign a bilateral treaty to make Northern Ireland part of Irish customs territory.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,123
    Scott_P said:
    Maybe we could have a sensible FTA with the EU instead so that we don't need a hard border. Just a thought.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,011
    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:
    Maybe we could have a sensible FTA with the EU instead so that we don't need a hard border. Just a thought.
    A thought that's been debunked a million times since 2016. FTAs do not deliver frictionless trade.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,215

    Can a bookie put up a market on Daniel Kawczynski being charged with treason for consorting with a foreign power?

    'Cause if they do, I'll make a complaint to the rozzers and we're all winners.

    https://twitter.com/DKShrewsbury/status/1087691731095699456

    A Polish govt source shots this down immediately saying Britain's withdrawal from the EU without an agreement is the worst possible scenario for Brexit

    Adds Poland would evaluate any A50 motion if/when it comes from the UK govt, but would need to have a clear plan of what's next
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,123

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:
    Maybe we could have a sensible FTA with the EU instead so that we don't need a hard border. Just a thought.
    A thought that's been debunked a million times since 2016. FTAs do not deliver frictionless trade.
    Depends what's in them. The SM is just a high powered FTA.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,800

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    You mean the bilateral U.K.-Ireland deal that was floated a few days ago? Not a bad idea. Why don’t we do that instead of the backstop?
    I think Ireland has to leave the EU though, to be able to negotiate that bi-lateral deal.

    Hmmm........
    No it doesn't. France has a bilateral customs union with Monaco. We could sign a bilateral treaty to make Northern Ireland part of Irish customs territory.
    Temporary special EU territory status for Ireland. Drops out of EUCU (as per the Canaries). Temporary bilateral UK-RoI customs territory.

    With EU blessing.

    ???
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,011
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:
    Maybe we could have a sensible FTA with the EU instead so that we don't need a hard border. Just a thought.
    A thought that's been debunked a million times since 2016. FTAs do not deliver frictionless trade.
    Depends what's in them. The SM is just a high powered FTA.
    Ok, so we stay in the single market and call it an FTA.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,209
    TGOHF said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    You mean the bilateral U.K.-Ireland deal that was floated a few days ago? Not a bad idea. Why don’t we do that instead of the backstop?
    Because the content would be the same as the NI-only backstop, so the ERG and DUP would still hate it.
    In that case it wouldn't pass parliament. Just like the NI-only backstop..

    bingo
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,123

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Who said:

    Dominic Grieve. But, he had his fingers crossed behind his back.
    He said it when he believed Liam Fox who said he'd have all those trade deals lined up one second after Brexit.

    When facts change, opinions change as well.
    He believed Liam Fox?

    But, he's a clever man, a QC.
    Grieve is honourable man, he took Fox at his word.
    So he is either incredibly naive or a liar. Either way should be really be an MP?
  • Options

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    You mean the bilateral U.K.-Ireland deal that was floated a few days ago? Not a bad idea. Why don’t we do that instead of the backstop?
    I think Ireland has to leave the EU though, to be able to negotiate that bi-lateral deal.

    Hmmm........
    No it doesn't. France has a bilateral customs union with Monaco. We could sign a bilateral treaty to make Northern Ireland part of Irish customs territory.

    The people in Northern Ireland want a backstop. A backstop has no material affect on the vast majority of people in Britain. It should be the easiest deal in history to do.

  • Options
    DayTripperDayTripper Posts: 128
    edited January 2019
    IanB2 said:

    Only 4/1 that we could be heading for fuel rationing?

    Will we end up playing Monopoly by candlelight several nights a week, and it will indeed be the early 70s once again?

    I was a student in Liverpool during the power cuts in the early 70s. One day I met a fellow student, whom I knew to be fairly militant atheist, coming out of the Catholic Cathedral which was opposite the Students Union. When I asked him what he'd been up to, he said the Cathedral was a really good source of candles.

    So there you are. Top tip for the coming blackouts - move near a RC Church.
  • Options
    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Well of course I don't recognise your description but to claim I have somehow changed my tune is kind of strange given I was cheerleading for Norway from the very start of this process back long before 2015. Norway is better than an FTA. It is better than No Deal and it is better than Remain (by a very long way). It should have been our objective from the start rather than some half arsed fall back position.

    I am aware that you always championed Norway. Where do I say you have changed your tune.

    But the fact is that your fellow travellers were not as mellow as you regarding, for example, immigration and now are deemed to want a break with every element of the EU and certainly have no truck for another European alphabet soup of association.

    So actually, whatever you want, matters not a jot at the moment. The people you voted with want something completely different. And yes I understand also that any version of Leave to you is better than Remain but what you fail to understand is that your co-Leavers believe that Norway is remaining. No wonder we're so fucked.
    Sorry, the impression I got from your last posting was that you thought I was only switching to Norway now.

    To be fair whatever I wanted never mattered a jot in the first place. I am well aware that even most Remainers do not share my views on complete freedom of movement so I have always been reconciled to getting what scraps I can from the table.
    If we leave, Norway isn't such a bad place to be. But even they call it "fax diplomacy" (surely soon to become email diplomacy) and it is also unclear whether Norway would welcome us supplanting its lead role in EFTA. And the CFP freedom will prove illusory as our fishermens' interests will surely be traded for something else, given that the industry is tiny and exports much of its catch to the EU anyway. The best thing about Norway is that it wouldn't be too difficult to rejoin.
    Um No. A few members of their coalition government who belong to a rampantly pro EU party which is desperate for Norway to join the EU calls it Fax diplomacy. The rest of the country are very clear it is a far superior position compared to EU membership which is why they currently reject the EU by massive majorities.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Who said:

    Dominic Grieve. But, he had his fingers crossed behind his back.
    He said it when he believed Liam Fox who said he'd have all those trade deals lined up one second after Brexit.

    When facts change, opinions change as well.
    He believed Liam Fox?

    But, he's a clever man, a QC.
    Grieve is honourable man, he took Fox at his word.
    So he is either incredibly naive or a liar. Either way should be really be an MP?
    Well lots of Leavers thought getting trade deals would be quick and easy.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,011
    Pro_Rata said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    You mean the bilateral U.K.-Ireland deal that was floated a few days ago? Not a bad idea. Why don’t we do that instead of the backstop?
    I think Ireland has to leave the EU though, to be able to negotiate that bi-lateral deal.

    Hmmm........
    No it doesn't. France has a bilateral customs union with Monaco. We could sign a bilateral treaty to make Northern Ireland part of Irish customs territory.
    Temporary special EU territory status for Ireland. Drops out of EUCU (as per the Canaries). Temporary bilateral UK-RoI customs territory.

    With EU blessing.

    ???
    Each EU member state has its own customs territory already and together they form a customs union. We would just do a bilateral deal to treat Northern Ireland as part of Ireland's customs territory, plus mirror their regulations to the extent needed to avoid a hard border.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    DavidL said:

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Who said:

    Dominic Grieve. But, he had his fingers crossed behind his back.
    He said it when he believed Liam Fox who said he'd have all those trade deals lined up one second after Brexit.

    When facts change, opinions change as well.
    He believed Liam Fox?

    But, he's a clever man, a QC.
    Grieve is honourable man, he took Fox at his word.
    So he is either incredibly naive or a liar. Either way should be really be an MP?
    He sounds admirably qualified.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,964
    Hasn't Germany and France signed a bilateral treaty today?
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,918
    edited January 2019
    Scott_P said:
    He is talking rubbish. There is not a single word in the GFA that refers to the border and its status. There may be good reasons for not having a hard border (actually there are good reasons) but they have nothing at all to do with the GFA. He is just clutching at straws.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,215

    IanB2 said:

    Only 4/1 that we could be heading for fuel rationing?

    Will we end up playing Monopoly by candlelight several nights a week, and it will indeed be the early 70s once again?

    I was a student in Liverpool during the power cuts in the early 70s. One day I met a fellow student, whom I knew to be fairly militant atheist, coming out of the Catholic Cathedral which was opposite the Students Union. When I asked him what he'd been up to, he said the Cathedral was a really good source of candles.

    So there you are. Top tip for the coming blackouts - move near a RC Church.
    By chance I found a load of candles at the bottom of a drawer just yesterday. So in one respect at least I am prepared for no deal. Just the food, bottled water and shotgun to go....
  • Options
    There's one advantage on Brexit being a disaster, the vile race baiting bigoted Nigel Farage will bugger off elsewhere.

    https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1087666955232862208
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,123

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Scott_P said:
    Maybe we could have a sensible FTA with the EU instead so that we don't need a hard border. Just a thought.
    A thought that's been debunked a million times since 2016. FTAs do not deliver frictionless trade.
    Depends what's in them. The SM is just a high powered FTA.
    Ok, so we stay in the single market and call it an FTA.
    If we stay in the CU, agree not to vary our standards and regulations out of step with the EU and accept mutual recognition of regulations by equivalent bodies the argument about whether we are in our out of the SM may become somewhat Jesuitical. And not very interesting either.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,800

    Pro_Rata said:

    Charles said:

    Scott_P said:
    You mean the bilateral U.K.-Ireland deal that was floated a few days ago? Not a bad idea. Why don’t we do that instead of the backstop?
    I think Ireland has to leave the EU though, to be able to negotiate that bi-lateral deal.

    Hmmm........
    No it doesn't. France has a bilateral customs union with Monaco. We could sign a bilateral treaty to make Northern Ireland part of Irish customs territory.
    Temporary special EU territory status for Ireland. Drops out of EUCU (as per the Canaries). Temporary bilateral UK-RoI customs territory.

    With EU blessing.

    ???
    Each EU member state has its own customs territory already and together they form a customs union. We would just do a bilateral deal to treat Northern Ireland as part of Ireland's customs territory, plus mirror their regulations to the extent needed to avoid a hard border.
    When you say 'we' that has to mean the UK, then. Or else, as others point out, it is just the backstop with a different formal counterparty.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,215

    IanB2 said:

    TOPPING said:

    Well of course I don't recognise your description but to claim I have somehow changed my tune is kind of strange given I was cheerleading for Norway from the very start of this process back long before 2015. Norway is better than an FTA. It is better than No Deal and it is better than Remain (by a very long way). It should have been our objective from the start rather than some half arsed fall back position.

    I am aware that you always championed Norway. Where do I say you have changed your tune.

    But the fact is that your fellow travellers were not as mellow as you regarding, for example, immigration and now are deemed to want a break with every element of the EU and certainly have no truck for another European alphabet soup of association.

    So actually, whatever you want, matters not a jot at the moment. The people you voted with want something completely different. And yes I understand also that any version of Leave to you is better than Remain but what you fail to understand is that your co-Leavers believe that Norway is remaining. No wonder we're so fucked.
    Sorry, the impression I got from your last posting was that you thought I was only switching to Norway now.

    To be fair whatever I wanted never mattered a jot in the first place. I am well aware that even most Remainers do not share my views on complete freedom of movement so I have always been reconciled to getting what scraps I can from the table.
    If we leave, Norway isn't such a bad place to be. But even they call it "fax diplomacy" (surely soon to become email diplomacy) and it is also unclear whether Norway would welcome us supplanting its lead role in EFTA. And the CFP freedom will prove illusory as our fishermens' interests will surely be traded for something else, given that the industry is tiny and exports much of its catch to the EU anyway. The best thing about Norway is that it wouldn't be too difficult to rejoin.
    Um No. A few members of their coalition government who belong to a rampantly pro EU party which is desperate for Norway to join the EU calls it Fax diplomacy. The rest of the country are very clear it is a far superior position compared to EU membership which is why they currently reject the EU by massive majorities.
    And this professor guy:

    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/20/youll-hate-it-why-the-norway-option-amounts-to-self-inflicted-subservience-to-the-eu/
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,011

    Scott_P said:
    He is talking rubbish. There is not a single word in the GFA that refers to the border and its status. There may be good reasons for not having a hard border (actually there are good reasons) but they have nothing at all to do with the GFA. He is just clutching at straws.
    Apart from the words which predicate the GFA on EU membership. The level of economic integration provided for by the EU is implicit which is why it was unnecessary for the GFA to talk about the border directly.
This discussion has been closed.