The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. One where we won't reignite the Troubles, or collapse supply-chains, or rip up and have to painstakingly redo hundreds on individual treaties ranging from airline airworthiness and landing rights to zoological cruelty standards. If we want to go further, we can do it from that position.
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
It's a question what you think voters want from Brexit (they focus on substance not form). EEA preserves some of the economic benefits of EU membership but doesn't change things like FoM and ECJ.
Fundamentally if the EU were to agree to free movement of labour (i.e. No work permit) rather than free movement of people (right to move look for a job) it could all be solved. I know this is big ask for the Eurocrats (turning back the ratchet( but it is essentially a shift back to pre Maastricht
But - the EEA isn't subject to the ECJ. I don't see how that's an issue? FoM - we could easily apply significantly more restrictions than we already do. If FoM was a key element of the answer, then we asked the wrong question in the first place. Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 112-113 of the EEA Agreement, anyway.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories in June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the Tories and DUP and the DUP back Brexit and Northern Ireland having the same Brexit terms as the rest of the UK.
In fact given Corbyn Labour backs leaving the single market ultimately too over 80% of UK voters voted for parties that supported leaving the single market and ending free movement.
Only LD, SNP, Plaid, SF and Green Party voters clearly voted for parties which want to permanently stay in the EEA and single market.
You're clutching at straws! The "in or out of the EEA" discussion hardly featured in the GE. Compared with Andy's argument, your point is uncharacteristically weak.
Surely you can come up with a better argument than that?
It hardly featured because Corbyn backed leaving the EEA too!
So voters weren't voting on that issue but on other issues. The fact they voted Tory or Labour doesn't mean they favoured leaving the EEA or even the EU. Most Labour voters are Remainers. Your argument just doesn't stack up and Andy's does.
I've also looked at the reasons for Labour voters, and Brexit didn't even signify in the responses to YouGov. So 21% of about 42% of voters (about 9% of all voters) are the bedrock of the claim.
"Democracy!" is a great shout when you're the one who gets to interpret what it means, I guess.
.,.. The Irish need to be told very bluntly to get stuffed. There is going to be a border between NI and ROI whatever they do. They need to focus on how to make that border as unobtrusive as possible, but it is going to exist. Norway and Sweden manage it, the Irish need to start proper discussions rather than just acting as the EU Commissions little bitch.
Never attribute to malice, that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
There is a solution - broadly what was proposed by the UK although I am sure that there are technical improvements that can be made.
If Ireland want to be disruptive so be it.
The British "solution" is essentially, deal with it, Ireland. It's long on "imaginative ways" Needless to say, the British expect the other side to be imaginative, not them.
As I mention below, I think a way out of the impasse is for the Irish to call the UK's bluff. Demonstrate how every item crossing the unmanned border will be EU compliant. You have the transition period to to come up with a solution and demonstrate that it works. This would take the sting out of the tail.
I think it's likely we'll stay in the Customs Union, but we're not in the place yet where everyone realises Brexit will entirely be an exercise in damage limitation. The Irish should give it time.
You have a system of trusted travelers (like Nexus between Canada and the US). You back that up with self-certification and deceleration. This is policed by spot checks and generous allowances did individuals.
You won't be able to guarantee 100% but there is already some leakage.
Fine, so let's go for that. The UK has the transition period to come up with a set of concrete and detailed proposals to ensure all goods crossing the unmanned border are EU compliant. Those proposals can be tested and if sufficiently robust, the deal goes ahead.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. One where we won't reignite the Troubles, or collapse supply-chains, or rip up and have to painstakingly redo hundreds on individual treaties ranging from airline airworthiness and landing rights to zoological cruelty standards. If we want to go further, we can do it from that position.
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
Both the then-government (Cameron, Osborne etc) and the Leave Campaign (Vote Leave with Boris, Gove etc) let alone the other leave campaigns like Leave.EU were all completely explicit that voting to leave the EU meant leaving the Single Market. It was in the referendum materials.
Name any Remain organisation that said pre-referendum that voting to Leave would still mean staying in the Single Market.
Cameron claimed leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market as part of his "fear campaign" - but his fear campaign was not believed.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. snip
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories in June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the ngle market.
You're clutching at straws! The "in or out of the EEA" discussion hardly featured in the GE. Compared with Andy's argument, your point is uncharacteristically weak.
Surely you can come up with a better argument than that?
It hardly featured because Corbyn backed leaving the EEA too!
So voters weren't voting on that issue but on other issues. The fact they voted Tory or Labour doesn't mean they favoured leaving the EEA or even the EU. Most Labour voters are Remainers. Your argument just doesn't stack up and Andy's does.
No they voted for Tory and Labour manifestos to leave the single market.
If voters cared strongly about staying permanently in the single market they would have voted for the LDs, Greens or SNP who did have manifesto commitments to stay permanently in the EEA.
And, as I said earlier, the best way to follow the democratic mandate of the referendum while avoiding the potential disasters such as reviving the Troubles, screwing over Gibraltar, ending up with hundreds of involved and often highly technical agreements abandoned and unreplaced, is simply to transition into the EEA. There is no democratic mandate from the referendum to action any particular flavour of Brexit, and the Leavers are the first to cite the democratic mandate. Do they not like democracy?
I am more than willing to - after we trial EEA membership (with maximum constraints on migration consonant with the pillar of free movement, and potentially with the Article 112-113 Emergency Brake) - have a subsequent referendum to see if the people decide this isn't exactly what they wanted. After all, it would give us more time to actually sort out these seemingly intractable issue.
The EEA does not on its own solve the Irish border problem, nor many others.
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
Well, I could have mentioned all those Irishmen (like my own father and great-uncle) who fought for the Allies in both world wars and British support for various unionist terror organizations and the army shooting dead 13 innocent civilians for demanding the rights that British citizens on the mainland took for granted.
But that would have made the header too long.
And the point is that it is precisely because Ireland remembers that it does not want changes which risk the peace which has been hard-won.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
what rubbish
the current spat is becasue we have a 38 year old PM in Ireland who takes the peace for granted and is prepared to play politics with the north to shore up his government
normally FG is the sensible party re Irish UK relations.
Varadkar however has deicded to play dice
this is not the UK stirring things up on Brexit but a weak taoiseach playing foreign adventures to make himself look tough
But - the EEA isn't subject to the ECJ. I don't see how that's an issue? FoM - we could easily apply significantly more restrictions than we already do. If FoM was a key element of the answer, then we asked the wrong question in the first place. Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 112-113 of the EEA Agreement, anyway.
I agree Andy. The EEA continues to be the most obvious and sensible route for the UK to take. If we had had a sensible PM in place then talks behind the scenes with EFTA to seek permission to rejoin would already have been taking place months ago. Indeed even if, like Switzerland, we were not looking to take the final step to EEA membership, EFTA membership would still be a good move because of the ready made trade deals in place.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. One where we won't reignite the Troubles, or collapse supply-chains, or rip up and have to painstakingly redo hundreds on individual treaties ranging from airline airworthiness and landing rights to zoological cruelty standards. If we want to go further, we can do it from that position.
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
It's a question what you think voters want from Brexit (they focus on substance not form). EEA preserves some of the economic benefits of EU membership but doesn't change things like FoM and ECJ.
Fundamentally if the EU were to agree to free movement of labour (i.e. No work permit) rather than free movement of people (right to move look for a job) it could all be solved. I know this is big ask for the Eurocrats (turning back the ratchet( but it is essentially a shift back to pre Maastricht
But - the EEA isn't subject to the ECJ. I don't see how that's an issue? FoM - we could easily apply significantly more restrictions than we already do. If FoM was a key element of the answer, then we asked the wrong question in the first place. Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 112-113 of the EEA Agreement, anyway.
We could have imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations, it was Blair's failure to do so which was a key reason for the Leave vote.
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
Well, I could have mentioned all those Irishmen (like my own father and great-uncle) who fought for the Allies in both world wars and British support for various unionist terror organizations and the army shooting dead 13 innocent civilians for demanding the rights that British citizens on the mainland took for granted.
But that would have made the header too long.
And the point is that it is precisely because Ireland remembers that it does not want changes which risk the peace which has been hard-won.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
what rubbish
the current spat is becasue we have a 38 year old PM in Ireland who takes the peace for granted and is prepared to play politics with the north to shore up his government
normally FG is the sensible party re Irish UK relations.
Varadkar however has deicded to play dice
this is not the UK stirring things up on Brexit but a weak taoiseach playing foreign adventures to make himself look tough
But - the EEA isn't subject to the ECJ. I don't see how that's an issue? FoM - we could easily apply significantly more restrictions than we already do. If FoM was a key element of the answer, then we asked the wrong question in the first place. Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 112-113 of the EEA Agreement, anyway.
I agree Andy. The EEA continues to be the most obvious and sensible route for the UK to take. If we had had a sensible PM in place then talks behind the scenes with EFTA to seek permission to rejoin would already have been taking place months ago. Indeed even if, like Switzerland, we were not looking to take the final step to EEA membership, EFTA membership would still be a good move because of the ready made trade deals in place.
Leave would not have got over 50% without the commitment to end free movement, that has to be delivered.
After a decade or so and we have got EU immigration under control then rejoining EFTA and the EEA can be seriously considered but not now.
It's not that long since the fact was that year after year after year, general election after general election after general election, the voters kept voting for manifestos in which we stayed in the EU.
Strangely, that didn't stop those who wanted to leave from insisting on pushing for a separate referendum. What need for the referendum at all, if the voters had voted for staying in the EU in all those manifestos? Yet they continued to ratchet up the pressure on Cameron to offer a referendum on leaving and - unbelievably - it turned out that the previous apparent overwhelming majority in favour of all of those manifestos to stay in was, when the subject was separated out - illusory.
Huh.
I guess it's not valid the other way around, though.
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
Well, I could have mentioned all those Irishmen (like my own father and great-uncle) who fought for the Allies in both world wars and British support for various unionist terror organizations and the army shooting dead 13 innocent civilians for demanding the rights that British citizens on the mainland took for granted.
But that would have made the header too long.
And the point is that it is precisely because Ireland remembers that it does not want changes which risk the peace which has been hard-won.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
what rubbish
the current spat is becasue we have a 38 year old PM in Ireland who takes the peace for granted and is prepared to play politics with the north to shore up his government
normally FG is the sensible party re Irish UK relations.
Varadkar however has deicded to play dice
this is not the UK stirring things up on Brexit but a weak taoiseach playing foreign adventures to make himself look tough
But - the EEA isn't subject to the ECJ. I don't see how that's an issue? FoM - we could easily apply significantly more restrictions than we already do. If FoM was a key element of the answer, then we asked the wrong question in the first place. Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 112-113 of the EEA Agreement, anyway.
I agree Andy. The EEA continues to be the most obvious and sensible route for the UK to take. If we had had a sensible PM in place then talks behind the scenes with EFTA to seek permission to rejoin would already have been taking place months ago. Indeed even if, like Switzerland, we were not looking to take the final step to EEA membership, EFTA membership would still be a good move because of the ready made trade deals in place.
Given also that we could leave the EEA simply by giving one year's notice as well, if it turns out that's not an acceptable outcome, it seems bizarre to not even consider it.
It's an easy transitional arrangement at the very least.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU. . snip
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories in June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the ngle market.
You're clutching at straws! The "in or out of the EEA" discussion hardly featured in the GE. Compared with Andy's argument, your point is uncharacteristically weak.
Surely you can come up with a better argument than that?
It hardly featured because Corbyn backed leaving the EEA too!
So voters weren't voting on that issue but on other issues. The fact they voted Tory or Labour doesn't mean they favoured leaving the EEA or even the EU. Most Labour voters are Remainers. Your argument just doesn't stack up and Andy's does.
No they voted for Tory and Labour manifestos to leave the single market.
If voters cared strongly about staying permanently in the single market they would have voted for the LDs, Greens or SNP who did have manifesto commitments to stay permanently in the EEA.
You and I both know that voters don't vote for manifestos, or even know what is in them, or even that they exist.
Voters vote for a variety of reasons (personalities, policies that are highlighted in the media or by politicians, party loyalty) but not for every last item in the manifesto! That is straw clutching.
John McDonnell on the news saying the important thing is to not jeopardise the peace process. Rather nauseating given he was on the side of the IRA hardliners during the GFA!
What is sad is the anti-Brexit bias of the news channels means the presenter nods along rather than pointing out the hypocrisy.
We could have imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations, it was Blair's failure to do so which was a key reason for the Leave vote.
What's the evidence for that? There's no particular correlation between areas of high immigration and a high Leave vote (if anything it's the opposite) and only a minimal correlation between there being a lot of immigration and the voters thinking there's too much immigration. Leave mainly ran on hypothetical brown people from Turkey and/or Syria rather than actual Europeans.
It's not that long since the fact was that year after year after year, general election after general election after general election, the voters kept voting for manifestos in which we stayed in the EU.
Strangely, that didn't stop those who wanted to leave from insisting on pushing for a separate referendum. What need for the referendum at all, if the voters had voted for staying in the EU in all those manifestos? Yet they continued to ratchet up the pressure on Cameron to offer a referendum on leaving and - unbelievably - it turned out that the previous apparent overwhelming majority in favour of all of those manifestos to stay in was, when the subject was separated out - illusory.
Huh.
I guess it's not valid the other way around, though.
This is a bit of a silly comparison. People voted for those manifestos on a large number of issues, and I can't think of an election where the EU was the primary one. In fact, in one of those manifestos we got elected on a promise of not signing a treaty without a referendum and subsequently backed out of it.
But - the EEA isn't subject to the ECJ. I don't see how that's an issue? FoM - we could easily apply significantly more restrictions than we already do. If FoM was a key element of the answer, then we asked the wrong question in the first place. Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 112-113 of the EEA Agreement, anyway.
I agree Andy. The EEA continues to be the most obvious and sensible route for the UK to take. If we had had a sensible PM in place then talks behind the scenes with EFTA to seek permission to rejoin would already have been taking place months ago. Indeed even if, like Switzerland, we were not looking to take the final step to EEA membership, EFTA membership would still be a good move because of the ready made trade deals in place.
Leave would not have got over 50% without the commitment to end free movement, that has to be delivered.
After a decade or so and we have got EU immigration under control then rejoining EFTA and the EEA can be seriously considered but not now.
You are probably right that "Leave would not have got over 50% without the commitment to end free movement". But that does not mean that over 50% want to end free movement! It could be only 40% or less. So it doesn't have to be delivered. Your logic is faulty.
It's not that long since the fact was that year after year after year, general election after general election after general election, the voters kept voting for manifestos in which we stayed in the EU.
Strangely, that didn't stop those who wanted to leave from insisting on pushing for a separate referendum. What need for the referendum at all, if the voters had voted for staying in the EU in all those manifestos? Yet they continued to ratchet up the pressure on Cameron to offer a referendum on leaving and - unbelievably - it turned out that the previous apparent overwhelming majority in favour of all of those manifestos to stay in was, when the subject was separated out - illusory.
Huh.
I guess it's not valid the other way around, though.
It would be if a pro single market party had that in their manifesto and win the next general election on it.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories in June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the ngle market.
You're clutching at straws! The "in or out of the EEA" discussion hardly featured in the GE. Compared with Andy's argument, your point is uncharacteristically weak.
Surely you can come up with a better argument than that?
It hardly featured because Corbyn backed leaving the EEA too!
So voters weren't voting on that issue but on other issues. The fact they voted Tory or Labour doesn't mean they favoured leaving the EEA or even the EU. Most Labour voters are Remainers. Your argument just doesn't stack up and Andy's does.
No they voted for Tory and Labour manifestos to leave the single market.
If voters cared strongly about staying permanently in the single market they would have voted for the LDs, Greens or SNP who did have manifesto commitments to stay permanently in the EEA.
You and I both know that voters don't vote for manifestos, or even know what is in them, or even that they exist.
Voters vote for a variety of reasons (personalities, policies that are highlighted in the media or by politicians, party loyalty) but not for every last item in the manifesto! That is straw clutching.
If they care strongly about an issue they will vote for a party that has that issue in their manifesto.
Clearly not enough voters cared strongly about staying permanently in the EEA and leaving free movement permanently in place.
We could have imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations, it was Blair's failure to do so which was a key reason for the Leave vote.
What's the evidence for that? There's no particular correlation between areas of high immigration and a high Leave vote (if anything it's the opposite) and only a minimal correlation between there being a lot of immigration and the voters thinking there's too much immigration. Leave mainly ran on hypothetical brown people from Turkey and/or Syria rather than actual Europeans.
I read something a little while back that said there was a clear correlation between the size of the hard right wing vote and the share of foreign born population. It seems difficult to believe that didn't have an effect on the Brexit vote.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. snip
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories in June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the ngle market.
You're clutching at straws! The "in or out of the EEA" discussion hardly featured in the GE. Compared with Andy's argument, your point is uncharacteristically weak.
Surely you can come up with a better argument than that?
It hardly featured because Corbyn backed leaving the EEA too!
So voters weren't voting on that issue but on other issues. The fact they voted Tory or Labour doesn't mean they favoured leaving the EEA or even the EU. Most Labour voters are Remainers. Your argument just doesn't stack up and Andy's does.
No they voted for Tory and Labour manifestos to leave the single market.
If voters cared strongly about staying permanently in the single market they would have voted for the LDs, Greens or SNP who did have manifesto commitments to stay permanently in the EEA.
Speak for yourself! I for one didn't vote Conservative or Labour to leave the single market. Your statements today have a higher 'sweeping coefficient' than usual!
We could have imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations, it was Blair's failure to do so which was a key reason for the Leave vote.
What's the evidence for that? There's no particular correlation between areas of high immigration and a high Leave vote (if anything it's the opposite) and only a minimal correlation between there being a lot of immigration and the voters thinking there's too much immigration. Leave mainly ran on hypothetical brown people from Turkey and/or Syria rather than actual Europeans.
The evidence is that there was only a turnout of more than 70% because working class voters turned out to vote Leave to reduce immigration.
It was of course Merkel's decision to open the EU doors to migrants from Syria which meant Syrian migration was also interconnected to EU/EEA free movement.
But - the EEA isn't subject to the ECJ. I don't see how that's an issue? FoM - we could easily apply significantly more restrictions than we already do. If FoM was a key element of the answer, then we asked the wrong question in the first place. Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 112-113 of the EEA Agreement, anyway.
I agree Andy. The EEA continues to be the most obvious and sensible route for the UK to take. If we had had a sensible PM in place then talks behind the scenes with EFTA to seek permission to rejoin would already have been taking place months ago. Indeed even if, like Switzerland, we were not looking to take the final step to EEA membership, EFTA membership would still be a good move because of the ready made trade deals in place.
Leave would not have got over 50% without the commitment to end free movement, that has to be delivered.
After a decade or so and we have got EU immigration under control then rejoining EFTA and the EEA can be seriously considered but not now.
Actually you could join EFTA without free movement. Switzerland has freedom of movement agreements with the EU through bilateral treaties but stays out of the EEA. It is only EEA membership that requires freedom of movement. So (if they would have us) we could join EFTA and not sign up to the EEA which would maintain some key trade agreements with the rest of the world but would not cross your red line on FoM.
Personally of course I would like us to go further and join the EEA as well but even under your proscriptions, EFTA membership should be acceptable.
I've heard there is a lot of consternation in Frankfurt that the EBA is being moved to Paris because ESMA is already there. They think it will draw more business away from Frankfurt but very little away from London.
But - the EEA isn't subject to the ECJ. I don't see how that's an issue? FoM - we could easily apply significantly more restrictions than we already do. If FoM was a key element of the answer, then we asked the wrong question in the first place. Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 112-113 of the EEA Agreement, anyway.
I agree Andy. The EEA continues to be the most obvious and sensible route for the UK to take. If we had had a sensible PM in place then talks behind the scenes with EFTA to seek permission to rejoin would already have been taking place months ago. Indeed even if, like Switzerland, we were not looking to take the final step to EEA membership, EFTA membership would still be a good move because of the ready made trade deals in place.
Leave would not have got over 50% without the commitment to end free movement, that has to be delivered.
After a decade or so and we have got EU immigration under control then rejoining EFTA and the EEA can be seriously considered but not now.
You are probably right that "Leave would not have got over 50% without the commitment to end free movement". But that does not mean that over 50% want to end free movement! It could be only 40% or less. So it doesn't have to be delivered. Your logic is faulty.
It does have to be delivered as Leave won. Had Remain won or the pro single market and pro free movement LDs won the 2017 general election or perhaps even held the balance of power with the SNP it would not have had to have been delivered.
We could have imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations, it was Blair's failure to do so which was a key reason for the Leave vote.
What's the evidence for that? There's no particular correlation between areas of high immigration and a high Leave vote (if anything it's the opposite) and only a minimal correlation between there being a lot of immigration and the voters thinking there's too much immigration. Leave mainly ran on hypothetical brown people from Turkey and/or Syria rather than actual Europeans.
The evidence is that there was only a turnout of more than 70% because working class voters turned out to vote Leave to reduce immigration.
It was of course Merkel's decision to open the EU doors to migrants from Syria which meant Syrian migration was also interconnected to EU/EEA free movement.
42% of Leave voters said they would prefer to maintain FoM in order to stay in the Single Market. 45% said ending FoM was more important.
So you are talking about fulfilling the will of the referendum and ending FoM on the basis of 45% of the 52% who voted Leave. The numbers start to dwindle rapidly.
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
Well, I could have mentioned all those Irishmen (like my own father and great-uncle) who fought for the Allies in both world wars and British support for various unionist terror organizations and the army shooting dead 13 innocent civilians for demanding the rights that British citizens on the mainland took for granted.
But that would have made the header too long.
And the point is that it is precisely because Ireland remembers that it does not want changes which risk the peace which has been hard-won.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
what rubbish
the current spat is becasue we have a 38 year old PM in Ireland who takes the peace for granted and is prepared to play politics with the north to shore up his government
normally FG is the sensible party re Irish UK relations.
Varadkar however has deicded to play dice
this is not the UK stirring things up on Brexit but a weak taoiseach playing foreign adventures to make himself look tough
The problem Ireland is facing is no deal means the UK would not enact border controls but Ireland would be forced to by its EU partners. They are having to gamble that the UK would accept NI in the customs union rather than risk talks collapsing. That would have been a reasonable gamble with a large Tory majority, but seems ridiculous with the DUP critical to government.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories in June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the ngle market.
You're clutching at straws! The "in or out of the EEA" discussion hardly featured in the GE. Compared with Andy's argument, your point is uncharacteristically weak.
Surely you can come up with a better argument than that?
It hardly featured because Corbyn backed leaving the EEA too!
So voters weren't voting on that issue but on other issues. The fact they voted Tory or Labour doesn't mean they favoured leaving the EEA or even the EU. Most Labour voters are Remainers. Your argument just doesn't stack up and Andy's does.
No they voted for Tory and Labour manifestos to leave the single market.
If voters cared strongly about staying permanently in the single market they would have voted for the LDs, Greens or SNP who did have manifesto commitments to stay permanently in the EEA.
You and I both know that voters don't vote for manifestos, or even know what is in them, or even that they exist.
Voters vote for a variety of reasons (personalities, policies that are highlighted in the media or by politicians, party loyalty) but not for every last item in the manifesto! That is straw clutching.
If they care strongly about an issue they will vote for a party that has that issue in their manifesto.
Clearly not enough voters cared strongly about staying permanently in the EEA and leaving free movement permanently in place.
I suggest not many voters cared strongly either way about the EEA or understood the subtleties and implications.
But if staying in honours the EUREf, and solves many of the problems as Andy suggests, why fight against the idea with specious arguments about manifestos?
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories in June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the ngle market.
You're clutching at straws! The "in or out of the EEA" discussion hardly featured in the GE. Compared with Andy's argument, your point is uncharacteristically weak.
Surely you can come up with a better argument than that?
It hardly featured because Corbyn backed leaving the EEA too!
So voters weren't voting on that issue but on other issues. The fact they voted Tory or Labour doesn't mean they favoured leaving the EEA or even the EU. Most Labour voters are Remainers. Your argument just doesn't stack up and Andy's does.
No they voted for Tory and Labour manifestos to leave the single market.
If voters cared strongly about staying permanently in the single market they would have voted for the LDs, Greens or SNP who did have manifesto commitments to stay permanently in the EEA.
Speak for yourself! I for one didn't vote Conservative or Labour to leave the single market. Your statements today have a higher 'sweeping coefficient' than usual!
Tough. You voted for a manifesto which backed leaving the single market, if you opposed it that strongly you should have voted LD
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
Well, I could have mentioned all those Irishmen (like my own father and great-uncle) who fought for the Allies in both world wars and British support for various unionist terror organizations and the army shooting dead 13 innocent civilians for demanding the rights that British citizens on the mainland took for granted.
But that would have made the header too long.
And the point is that it is precisely because Ireland remembers that it does not want changes which risk the peace which has been hard-won.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
what rubbish
the current spat is becasue we have a 38 year old PM in Ireland who takes the peace for granted and is prepared to play politics with the north to shore up his government
normally FG is the sensible party re Irish UK relations.
Varadkar however has deicded to play dice
this is not the UK stirring things up on Brexit but a weak taoiseach playing foreign adventures to make himself look tough
The problem Ireland is facing is no deal means the UK would not enact border controls but Ireland would be forced to by its EU partners. They are having to gamble that the UK would accept NI in the customs union rather than risk talks collapsing. That would have been a reasonable gamble with a large Tory majority, but seems ridiculous with the DUP critical to government.
The bigger problem for Ireland is they don't actually have a veto over the final deal. If they become a sticking point they can, unfortunately, be ignored by Brussels if the rest of the EU want a deal. I am not saying by any means it would happen, just that there is definitely a certain amount of desperate bluffing going on by Ireland.
We could have imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations, it was Blair's failure to do so which was a key reason for the Leave vote.
What's the evidence for that? There's no particular correlation between areas of high immigration and a high Leave vote (if anything it's the opposite) and only a minimal correlation between there being a lot of immigration and the voters thinking there's too much immigration. Leave mainly ran on hypothetical brown people from Turkey and/or Syria rather than actual Europeans.
The evidence is that there was only a turnout of more than 70% because working class voters turned out to vote Leave to reduce immigration.
It was of course Merkel's decision to open the EU doors to migrants from Syria which meant Syrian migration was also interconnected to EU/EEA free movement.
42% of Leave voters said they would prefer to maintain FoM in order to stay in the Single Market. 45% said ending FoM was more important.
So you are talking about fulfilling the will of the referendum and ending FoM on the basis of 45% of the 52% who voted Leave. The numbers start to dwindle rapidly.
That ignores thr Remain voters who think "I didn't want to leave, but given we are, we should get the benefit of reducing immigration."
From the outside, it does on the face of it seem difficult to understand what the Irish aim in all this is. I don't think anyone really doubts the UK commitment to avoiding a "hard" (in the sense of generating extreme inconvenience for all concerned) border between the North and the South. So in that context it is not clear why they think making it a red line now is going to achieve the desired objective. The UK don't want a the same border with the rest of the EU either, so it's not even like the Irish border is unique in that respect.
Short of thinking that Brexit can be reversed, the Irish stance just seems likely to result in the worst outcome for themselves. And whereas many people like to debate whether a complete collapse in talks will be worse for the UK or the EU, surely nobody doubts it would be disastrous for the Republic (and Holland, Belgium etc)
Has the EU's attitude to Brexit weakened or hardened the resolve for Brexit in the UK
The polls have only moved marginally against, and my guess is that the EU position hasn't made much difference. Most people really aren't paying much attention at the moment, and insofar as they are noticing, it is the chaos and lack of clarity/plan from the UK government that is likely having the most impact.
But - the EEA isn't subject to the ECJ. I don't see how that's an issue? FoM - we could easily apply significantly more restrictions than we already do. If FoM was a key element of the answer, then we asked the wrong question in the first place. Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 112-113 of the EEA Agreement, anyway.
I agree Andy. The EEA continues to be the most obvious and sensible route for the UK to take. If we had had a sensible PM in place then talks behind the scenes with EFTA to seek permission to rejoin would already have been taking place months ago. Indeed even if, like Switzerland, we were not looking to take the final step to EEA membership, EFTA membership would still be a good move because of the ready made trade deals in place.
Leave would not have got over 50% without the commitment to end free movement, that has to be delivered.
After a decade or so and we have got EU immigration under control then rejoining EFTA and the EEA can be seriously considered but not now.
Actually you could join EFTA without free movement. Switzerland has freedom of movement agreements with the EU through bilateral treaties but stays out of the EEA. It is only EEA membership that requires freedom of movement. So (if they would have us) we could join EFTA and not sign up to the EEA which would maintain some key trade agreements with the rest of the world but would not cross your red line on FoM.
Personally of course I would like us to go further and join the EEA as well but even under your proscriptions, EFTA membership should be acceptable.
The Swiss option is the only viable possibility at the moment yes, which as you say means leaving the EEA but staying in EFTA.
Though Switzerland largely has free movement in return for the bilateral agreements it has with EU anyway, the Swiss just give preference to local workers first for jobs.
We could have imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations, it was Blair's failure to do so which was a key reason for the Leave vote.
What's the evidence for that? There's no particular correlation between areas of high immigration and a high Leave vote (if anything it's the opposite) and only a minimal correlation between there being a lot of immigration and the voters thinking there's too much immigration. Leave mainly ran on hypothetical brown people from Turkey and/or Syria rather than actual Europeans.
The evidence is that there was only a turnout of more than 70% because working class voters turned out to vote Leave to reduce immigration.
It was of course Merkel's decision to open the EU doors to migrants from Syria which meant Syrian migration was also interconnected to EU/EEA free movement.
42% of Leave voters said they would prefer to maintain FoM in order to stay in the Single Market. 45% said ending FoM was more important.
So you are talking about fulfilling the will of the referendum and ending FoM on the basis of 45% of the 52% who voted Leave. The numbers start to dwindle rapidly.
That ignores thr Remain voters who think "I didn't want to leave, but given we are, we should get the benefit of reducing immigration."
It does and someone should find out the real numbers for that. But HYUFD has been talking consistently about immigration being the overwhelming reason why people voted Leave and the polls simply do not reflect that.
Come on everyone. This Irish question is just the EU playing a game - they have told the Irish to bring this up. It is all part of their scheme to try to lock the UK into following EU regulations after Brexit, which will obviously be the first issue in trade talks.
The EU have said that we either accept Norway or CETA - fine, we will take CETA. But the problem is that the CETA FTA (like all FTAs) is not built on following someone else's regulations, it is built on mutual acceptance of each others regulations.
The EU are terrified (quite rightly) that the UK will diverge and become more competitive and want to find some excuse to insist on the UK using the EU's regulatory regime after Brexit.
All this Irish stuff is their way of getting there. They want to bully the UK into accepting EU regulations so that we can't really leave the CU and SM even though we won't get the benefits.
The Irish need to be told very bluntly to get stuffed. There is going to be a border between NI and ROI whatever they do. They need to focus on how to make that border as unobtrusive as possible, but it is going to exist. Norway and Sweden manage it, the Irish need to start proper discussions rather than just acting as the EU Commissions little bitch.
Is the solution not simple? – The UK tells its EU interlocutors that in the absence of a free trade agreement it will unilaterally abolish import duties but retain the CTA which predates the EU. Then the onus is on the EU to create the hard border they say they don’t want if they won’t agree an FTA.
We could have imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations, it was Blair's failure to do so which was a key reason for the Leave vote.
What's the evidence for that? There's no particular correlation between areas of high immigration and a high Leave vote (if anything it's the opposite) and only a minimal correlation between there being a lot of immigration and the voters thinking there's too much immigration. Leave mainly ran on hypothetical brown people from Turkey and/or Syria rather than actual Europeans.
The evidence is that there was only a turnout of more than 70% because working class voters turned out to vote Leave to reduce immigration.
It was of course Merkel's decision to open the EU doors to migrants from Syria which meant Syrian migration was also interconnected to EU/EEA free movement.
42% of Leave voters said they would prefer to maintain FoM in order to stay in the Single Market. 45% said ending FoM was more important.
So you are talking about fulfilling the will of the referendum and ending FoM on the basis of 45% of the 52% who voted Leave. The numbers start to dwindle rapidly.
We could have imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations, it was Blair's failure to do so which was a key reason for the Leave vote.
What's the evidence for that? There's no particular correlation between areas of high immigration and a high Leave vote (if anything it's the opposite) and only a minimal correlation between there being a lot of immigration and the voters thinking there's too much immigration. Leave mainly ran on hypothetical brown people from Turkey and/or Syria rather than actual Europeans.
The evidence is that there was only a turnout of more than 70% because working class voters turned out to vote Leave to reduce immigration.
It was of course Merkel's decision to open the EU doors to migrants from Syria which meant Syrian migration was also interconnected to EU/EEA free movement.
We know the voters oppose immigration, and particularly immigration by brown people. What I'm not seeing is where you get the idea that they oppose it because of transitional arrangements with EU accession countries. If there was at least a connection in the data between immigration actually happening and voters opposing immigration then we could at least speculate that it might have been the EU accession immigration that made the difference (since there was lots of it) but the data shows the opposite.
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
Well, I could have mentioned all those Irishmen (like my own father and great-uncle) who fought for the Allies in both world wars and British support for various unionist terror organizations and the army shooting dead 13 innocent civilians for demanding the rights that British citizens on the mainland took for granted.
But that would have made the header too long.
And the point is that it is precisely because Ireland remembers that it does not want changes which risk the peace which has been hard-won.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
what rubbish
the current spat is becasue we have a 38 year old PM in Ireland who takes the peace for granted and is prepared to play politics with the north to shore up his government
normally FG is the sensible party re Irish UK relations.
Varadkar however has deicded to play dice
this is not the UK stirring things up on Brexit but a weak taoiseach playing foreign adventures to make himself look tough
The problem Ireland is facing is no deal means the UK would not enact border controls but Ireland would be forced to by its EU partners. They are having to gamble that the UK would accept NI in the customs union rather than risk talks collapsing. That would have been a reasonable gamble with a large Tory majority, but seems ridiculous with the DUP critical to government.
The bigger problem for Ireland is they don't actually have a veto over the final deal. If they become a sticking point they can, unfortunately, be ignored by Brussels if the rest of the EU want a deal. I am not saying by any means it would happen, just that there is definitely a certain amount of desperate bluffing going on by Ireland.
But aren't we continually told that a deal isn't that important to the EU? And what ingredients of a 'deal' (as opposed to no deal) would shaft the Irish (given the UK commitment to the Good Friday agreement).
I wonder if the best way to resolve the NI question is for the negotiators to draw up two plans. One is the province staying in the CU/SM and one has a technology-based customs border similar to the Western part of the US-Canada border. The deal then says it would be decided by referendum of NI voters. It would be hard for either the Republic or the DUP to oppose that.
We could have imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations, it was Blair's failure to do so which was a key reason for the Leave vote.
What's the evidence for that? There's no particular correlation between areas of high immigration and a high Leave vote (if anything it's the opposite) and only a minimal correlation between there being a lot of immigration and the voters thinking there's too much immigration. Leave mainly ran on hypothetical brown people from Turkey and/or Syria rather than actual Europeans.
The evidence is that there was only a turnout of more than 70% because working class voters turned out to vote Leave to reduce immigration.
It was of course Merkel's decision to open the EU doors to migrants from Syria which meant Syrian migration was also interconnected to EU/EEA free movement.
42% of Leave voters said they would prefer to maintain FoM in order to stay in the Single Market. 45% said ending FoM was more important.
So you are talking about fulfilling the will of the referendum and ending FoM on the basis of 45% of the 52% who voted Leave. The numbers start to dwindle rapidly.
That ignores thr Remain voters who think "I didn't want to leave, but given we are, we should get the benefit of reducing immigration."
It does and someone should find out the real numbers for that. But HYUFD has been talking consistently about immigration being the overwhelming reason why people voted Leave and the polls simply do not reflect that.
No I have said regaining sovereignty AND reducing immigration were the key reasons people voted Leave and the polls do support that.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories in June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the ngle market.
You're clutching at straws! The "in or out of the EEA" discussion hardly featured in the GE. Compared with Andy's argument, your point is uncharacteristically weak.
Surely you can come up with a better argument than that?
It hardly featured because Corbyn backed leaving the EEA too!
So voters weren't voting on that issue but on other issues. The fact they voted Tory or Labour doesn't mean they favoured leaving the EEA or even the EU. Most Labour voters are Remainers. Your argument just doesn't stack up and Andy's does.
No they voted for Tory and Labour manifestos to leave the single market.
If voters cared strongly about staying permanently in the single market they would have voted for the LDs, Greens or SNP who did have manifesto commitments to stay permanently in the EEA.
You and I both know that voters don't vote for manifestos, or even know what is in them, or even that they exist.
Voters vote for a variety of reasons (personalities, policies that are highlighted in the media or by politicians, party loyalty) but not for every last item in the manifesto! That is straw clutching.
If they care strongly about an issue they will vote for a party that has that issue in their manifesto.
Clearly not enough voters cared strongly about staying permanently in the EEA and leaving free movement permanently in place.
I suggest not many voters cared strongly either way about the EEA or understood the subtleties and implications.
But if staying in honours the EUREf, and solves many of the problems as Andy suggests, why fight against the idea with specious arguments about manifestos?
It does not honour the EUref as one of the 2 key reasons for Leave voters voting Leave was to reduce immigration.
Actually you could join EFTA without free movement. Switzerland has freedom of movement agreements with the EU through bilateral treaties but stays out of the EEA. It is only EEA membership that requires freedom of movement. So (if they would have us) we could join EFTA and not sign up to the EEA which would maintain some key trade agreements with the rest of the world but would not cross your red line on FoM.
Personally of course I would like us to go further and join the EEA as well but even under your proscriptions, EFTA membership should be acceptable.
You can't compare Switzerland to the UK, when I arrived I had to purchase a fairly expensive private health policy and I had to prove self-sufficiency to the Zurich cantonal government within three months, that required me to show I could afford to live in Zurich without any government assistance and have a minimum level of disposable income after my rent and other expenses. We have nothing like that system in the UK.
Just moving to Zurich left me £4.5k out of pocket before I'd started work because I had to get the insurance policy.
The difference is that Switzerland doesn't have universal healthcare and nor is it a welfare state. Free movement isn't a big deal because the bar is set so high. If I can't afford rent, I'm homeless, if I can't afford healthcare I get sent home, if I'm unemployed I have to live off my savings and eventually get sent home if I'm no longer able to prove I'm self-sufficient.
Until the UK adopts these measures and raises the bar of entry to £5k like it is in Switzerland then free movement is an issue.
As it stands the bilateral treaty between Switzerland and the EU contains exactly the same provision for free movement as we are subjected to in the UK. If anything the issue Swiss people have isn't with low income and unskilled jobs being unavailable, it's highly skilled, high income jobs that Swiss people are worried about and German immigrants living in Germany but working in Switzerland. That has become a huge issue, people feel that the German workers are not contributing to the Swiss economy but benefiting from the higher wages. I expect residency rules to change to reflect that (must live in the country for X many days to have a job).
We could have imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations, it was Blair's failure to do so which was a key reason for the Leave vote.
What's the evidence for that? There's no particular correlation between areas of high immigration and a high Leave vote (if anything it's the opposite) and only a minimal correlation between there being a lot of immigration and the voters thinking there's too much immigration. Leave mainly ran on hypothetical brown people from Turkey and/or Syria rather than actual Europeans.
The evidence is that there was only a turnout of more than 70% because working class voters turned out to vote Leave to reduce immigration.
It was of course Merkel's decision to open the EU doors to migrants from Syria which meant Syrian migration was also interconnected to EU/EEA free movement.
We know the voters oppose immigration, and particularly immigration by brown people. What I'm not seeing is where you get the idea that they oppose it because of transitional arrangements with EU accession countries. If there was at least a connection in the data between immigration actually happening and voters opposing immigration then we could at least speculate that it might have been the EU accession immigration that made the difference (since there was lots of it) but the data shows the opposite.
UKIP went from 3 MEPS in 1999 to 12 MEPs in 2004 just as Blair opened the floodgates to Eastern European migration to the UK
We could have imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations, it was Blair's failure to do so which was a key reason for the Leave vote.
What's the evidence for that? There's no particular correlation between areas of high immigration and a high Leave vote (if anything it's the opposite) and only a minimal correlation between there being a lot of immigration and the voters thinking there's too much immigration. Leave mainly ran on hypothetical brown people from Turkey and/or Syria rather than actual Europeans.
The evidence is that there was only a turnout of more than 70% because working class voters turned out to vote Leave to reduce immigration.
It was of course Merkel's decision to open the EU doors to migrants from Syria which meant Syrian migration was also interconnected to EU/EEA free movement.
42% of Leave voters said they would prefer to maintain FoM in order to stay in the Single Market. 45% said ending FoM was more important.
So you are talking about fulfilling the will of the referendum and ending FoM on the basis of 45% of the 52% who voted Leave. The numbers start to dwindle rapidly.
The problem with that is that at the same time the majority also want to maintain free trade with the EU.
The NIESR poll allowed people to pick mutually exclusive outcomes. What it did not do is ask a direct choice question - FoM or Single Market. That is the only question that matters as it is the only one that has a realistic outcome.
As long as you continue to ask voters questions that allow for mutually exclusive outcomes you will never get a solution.
We could have imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations, it was Blair's failure to do so which was a key reason for the Leave vote.
What's the evidence for that? There's no particular correlation between areas of high immigration and a high Leave vote (if anything it's the opposite) and only a minimal correlation between there being a lot of immigration and the voters thinking there's too much immigration. Leave mainly ran on hypothetical brown people from Turkey and/or Syria rather than actual Europeans.
The evidence is that there was only a turnout of more than 70% because working class voters turned out to vote Leave to reduce immigration.
It was of course Merkel's decision to open the EU doors to migrants from Syria which meant Syrian migration was also interconnected to EU/EEA free movement.
We know the voters oppose immigration, and particularly immigration by brown people. What I'm not seeing is where you get the idea that they oppose it because of transitional arrangements with EU accession countries. If there was at least a connection in the data between immigration actually happening and voters opposing immigration then we could at least speculate that it might have been the EU accession immigration that made the difference (since there was lots of it) but the data shows the opposite.
But aren't we continually told that a deal isn't that important to the EU? And what ingredients of a 'deal' (as opposed to no deal) would shaft the Irish (given the UK commitment to the Good Friday agreement).
You would have to ask the Irish that. They are the ones insisting they would veto any deal that had a border between north and south. In spite of the fact it would not be the British putting up the border but the EU.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories in June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the ngle market.
You're clutching at straws! The "in or out of the EEA" discussion hardly featured in the GE. Compared with Andy's argument, your point is uncharacteristically weak.
Surely you can come up with a better argument than that?
It hardly featured because Corbyn backed leaving the EEA too!
So voters weren't voting on that issue but on other issues. The fact they voted Tory or Labour doesn't mean they favoured leaving the EEA or even the EU. Most Labour voters are Remainers. Your argument just doesn't stack up and Andy's does.
No they voted for Tory and Labour manifestos to leave the single market.
If voters cared strongly about staying permanently in the single market they would have voted for the LDs, Greens or SNP who did have manifesto commitments to stay permanently in the EEA.
Speak for yourself! I for one didn't vote Conservative or Labour to leave the single market. Your statements today have a higher 'sweeping coefficient' than usual!
Tough. You voted for a manifesto which backed leaving the single market, if you opposed it that strongly you should have voted LD
No I shouldn't!
My priority might have been the economic credibility of one party or another. The party I voted for had an education or health policy akin to my own. Perhaps I liked the anti-Brexit credentials of a particular candidate. It could be I believed Corbyn and McDonnell are dangerous. Maybe I considered the competence and arrogance of Conservative front benchers.
Actually you could join EFTA without free movement. Switzerland has freedom of movement agreements with the EU through bilateral treaties but stays out of the EEA. It is only EEA membership that requires freedom of movement. So (if they would have us) we could join EFTA and not sign up to the EEA which would maintain some key trade agreements with the rest of the world but would not cross your red line on FoM.
Personally of course I would like us to go further and join the EEA as well but even under your proscriptions, EFTA membership should be acceptable.
You can't compare Switzerland to the UK, when I arrived I had to purchase a fairly expensive private health policy and I had to prove self-sufficiency to the Zurich cantonal government within three months, that required me to show I could afford to live in Zurich without any government assistance and have a minimum level of disposable income after my rent and other expenses. We have nothing like that system in the UK.
Just moving to Zurich left me £4.5k out of pocket before I'd started work because I had to get the insurance policy.
The difference is that Switzerland doesn't have universal healthcare and nor is it a welfare state. Free movement isn't a big deal because the bar is set so high. If I can't afford rent, I'm homeless, if I can't afford healthcare I get sent home, if I'm unemployed I have to live off my savings and eventually get sent home if I'm no longer able to prove I'm self-sufficient.
Until the UK adopts these measures and raises the bar of entry to £5k like it is in Switzerland then free movement is an issue.
As it stands the bilateral treaty between Switzerland and the EU contains exactly the same provision for free movement as we are subjected to in the UK. If anything the issue Swiss people have isn't with low income and unskilled jobs being unavailable, it's highly skilled, high income jobs that Swiss people are worried about and German immigrants living in Germany but working in Switzerland. That has become a huge issue, people feel that the German workers are not contributing to the Swiss economy but benefiting from the higher wages. I expect residency rules to change to reflect that (must live in the country for X many days to have a job).
You have misunderstood what I wrote. I was using Switzerland as an example of being able to have EFTA membership but not having to be in the EEA and therefore not having to be subject to FoM. The fact that Swiss systems have subsequently allowed them to opt into FoM with the EU is irrelevant. That would be a choice we would make based on our own systems.
As I say, since I am in favour of FoM I am not advocating this per se, just pointing out that EFTA membership does not of itself require us to accept FoM and does make the transition to outside the EU much easier.
We could have imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations, it was Blair's failure to do so which was a key reason for the Leave vote.
What's the evidence for that? There's no particular correlation between areas of high immigration and a high Leave vote (if anything it's the opposite) and only a minimal correlation between there being a lot of immigration and the voters thinking there's too much immigration. Leave mainly ran on hypothetical brown people from Turkey and/or Syria rather than actual Europeans.
The evidence is that there was only a turnout of more than 70% because working class voters turned out to vote Leave to reduce immigration.
It was of course Merkel's decision to open the EU doors to migrants from Syria which meant Syrian migration was also interconnected to EU/EEA free movement.
42% of Leave voters said they would prefer to maintain FoM in order to stay in the Single Market. 45% said ending FoM was more important.
So you are talking about fulfilling the will of the referendum and ending FoM on the basis of 45% of the 52% who voted Leave. The numbers start to dwindle rapidly.
The problem with that is that at the same time the majority also want to maintain free trade with the EU.
The NIESR poll allowed people to pick mutually exclusive outcomes. What it did not do is ask a direct choice question - FoM or Single Market. That is the only question that matters as it is the only one that has a realistic outcome.
As long as you continue to ask voters questions that allow for mutually exclusive outcomes you will never get a solution.
Even that sort of question does not solve the issue as most voters do not understand what in amd out of the single market entails. Even inside the EU, the single market isn't complete, and likely won't be in the forseeable future You say "free trade" but that is an abstract ideal that never truly exists. The genuine choice is more like "a free trade agreement with reduced immigration" or "more extensive market membership with current immigration controls". Then there is the issue of laws too.
We could have imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations, it was Blair's failure to do so which was a key reason for the Leave vote.
What's the evidence for that? There's no particular correlation between areas of high immigration and a high Leave vote (if anything it's the opposite) and only a minimal correlation between there being a lot of immigration and the voters thinking there's too much immigration. Leave mainly ran on hypothetical brown people from Turkey and/or Syria rather than actual Europeans.
The evidence is that there was only a turnout of more than 70% because working class voters turned out to vote Leave to reduce immigration.
It was of course Merkel's decision to open the EU doors to migrants from Syria which meant Syrian migration was also interconnected to EU/EEA free movement.
42% of Leave voters said they would prefer to maintain FoM in order to stay in the Single Market. 45% said ending FoM was more important.
So you are talking about fulfilling the will of the referendum and ending FoM on the basis of 45% of the 52% who voted Leave. The numbers start to dwindle rapidly.
The problem with that is that at the same time the majority also want to maintain free trade with the EU.
The NIESR poll allowed people to pick mutually exclusive outcomes. What it did not do is ask a direct choice question - FoM or Single Market. That is the only question that matters as it is the only one that has a realistic outcome.
As long as you continue to ask voters questions that allow for mutually exclusive outcomes you will never get a solution.
Yes and the government is also seeking a FTA agreement with the EU to maintain free trade with the EU and end free movement.
As I say, since I am in favour of FoM I am not advocating this per se, just pointing out that EFTA membership does not of itself require us to accept FoM and does make the transition to outside the EU much easier.
How? Hypothetically, if we joined EFTA but not the EEA, we wouldn't even get automatic access to their existing third party trade deals. All it would give us is free trade with the EFTA members.
Tough. You voted for a manifesto which backed leaving the single market, if you opposed it that strongly you should have voted LD
Claiming that everyone who votes for a party is voting for everything in it's manifesto is ludicrous. By your logic over 80% of the population wants to leave the single market and that's bollocks pure and simple.
In a nutshell Leave could only win by not defining exactly what Brexit meant - that was the easy bit. The resultant chaos and paralysis comes from the fact that Leavers (let alone the other half of the country) can't unite around a particular Brexit strategy with everyone post-facto "interpreting" the result in a way that best suits their own purposes.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
A majority of seats in in England, Scotland and Wales were won by the Tories in June and thus voters backed the Tory plan to leave the single market to end free movement.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the ngle market.
You're clutching at straws! The "in or out of the EEA" discussion hardly featured in the GE. Compared with Andy's argument, your point is uncharacteristically weak.
Surely you can come up with a better argument than that?
It hardly featured because Corbyn backed leaving the EEA too!
So voters weren't voting on that issue but on other issues. The fact they voted Tory or Labour doesn't mean they favoured leaving the EEA or even the EU. Most Labour voters are Remainers. Your argument just doesn't stack up and Andy's does.
No EEA.
Speak for yourself! I for one didn't vote Conservative or Labour to leave the single market. Your statements today have a higher 'sweeping coefficient' than usual!
voted LD
No I shouldn't!
My priority might have been the economic credibility of one party or another. The party I voted for had an education or health policy akin to my own. Perhaps I liked the anti-Brexit credentials of a particular candidate. It could be I believed Corbyn and McDonnell are dangerous. Maybe I considered the competence and arrogance of Conservative front benchers.
Brexit was not the only issue, for me at least.
If Brexit was not the key issue for you and you were willing to put aside the manifesto commitment of the party you voted for to leave the single market because you thought other issues more important, don't then complain when that manifesto commitment to leave the single market is then delivered.
I see that the Remainers feel the need to make my own point about the EU's position back to me, as if I'd never made it in the first place, and thus proving it in the first place.
Perhaps it's not just ultra Leavers that can be tone-deaf.
Tough. You voted for a manifesto which backed leaving the single market, if you opposed it that strongly you should have voted LD
'Claiming that everyone who votes for a party is voting for everything in it's manifesto is ludicrous. By your logic over 80% of the population wants to leave the single market and that's bollocks pure and simple.
In a nutshell Leave could only win by not defining exactly what Brexit meant - that was the easy bit. The resultant chaos and paralysis comes from the fact that Leavers (let alone the other half of the country) can't unite around a particular Brexit strategy with everyone post-facto "interpreting" the result in a way that best suits their own purposes.'
Even if we just look at a majority of Tory voters alone backing leaving the single market to end free movement, a majority of seats in England, Wales and Scotland were won by the Tories on a manifesto commitment to leave the single market and a majority of seats across the UK too given the DUP's desire to see NI leave the EU on the same Brexit terms as the rest of the UK.
.,.. The Irish need to be told very bluntly to get stuffed. There is going to be a border between NI and ROI whatever they do. They need to focus on how to make that border as unobtrusive as possible, but it is going to exist. Norway and Sweden manage it, the Irish need to start proper discussions rather than just acting as the EU Commissions little bitch.
Never attribute to malice, that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
There is a solution - broadly what was proposed by the UK although I am sure that there are technical improvements that can be made.
If Ireland want to be disruptive so be it.
The British "solution" is essentially, deal with it, Ireland. It's long on "imaginative ways" Needless to say, the British expect the other side to be imaginative, not them.
As I mention below, I think a way out of the impasse is for the Irish to call the UK's bluff. Demonstrate how every item crossing the unmanned border will be EU compliant. You have the transition period to to come up with a solution and demonstrate that it works. This would take the sting out of the tail.
I think it's likely we'll stay in the Customs Union, but we're not in the place yet where everyone realises Brexit will entirely be an exercise in damage limitation. The Irish should give it time.
You have a system of trusted travelers (like Nexus between Canada and the US). You back that up with self-certification and deceleration. This is policed by spot checks and generous allowances did individuals.
You won't be able to guarantee 100% but there is already some leakage.
Fine, so let's go for that. The UK has the transition period to come up with a set of concrete and detailed proposals to ensure all goods crossing the unmanned border are EU compliant. Those proposals can be tested and if sufficiently robust, the deal goes ahead.
I hope you did not lose your IPod to those Iranians back-the-days. Just like Eire England is sovereign.
Tough. You voted for a manifesto which backed leaving the single market, if you opposed it that strongly you should have voted LD
Claiming that everyone who votes for a party is voting for everything in it's manifesto is ludicrous. By your logic over 80% of the population wants to leave the single market and that's bollocks pure and simple.
In a nutshell Leave could only win by not defining exactly what Brexit meant - that was the easy bit. The resultant chaos and paralysis comes from the fact that Leavers (let alone the other half of the country) can't unite around a particular Brexit strategy with everyone post-facto "interpreting" the result in a way that best suits their own purposes.
Leave made perfectly clear what Brexit would mean: ending EU control over UK borders and UK law, that is what people voted for -and the ONLY way that can be achieved is by leaving the Single Market.
Remoaners are being very disingenuous indeed if they are arguing that most UK voters in 2016 wanted to leave the EU in name, but wished to leave on exactly the same terms that we were in, with the EU continuing to control our borders and laws. The vote was clearly to end EU control over the UK and that means leaving the Single Market.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. One where we won't reignite the Troubles, or collapse supply-chains, or rip up and have to painstakingly redo hundreds on individual treaties ranging from airline airworthiness and landing rights to zoological cruelty standards. If we want to go further, we can do it from that position.
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
Isn't it funny when you think back to the time when no one could ask any questions about Britain's Brexit position without being accused of being a traitor in giving away our negotiating position.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the ngle market.
You're clutching at straws! The "in or out of the EEA" discussion hardly featured in the GE. Compared with Andy's argument, your point is uncharacteristically weak.
Surely you can come up with a better argument than that?
It hardly featured because Corbyn backed leaving the EEA too!
So voters weren't voting on that issue but on other issues. The fact they voted Tory or Labour doesn't mean they favoured leaving the EEA or even the EU. Most Labour voters are Remainers. Your argument just doesn't stack up and Andy's does.
No EEA.
Speak for yourself! I for one didn't vote Conservative or Labour to leave the single market. Your statements today have a higher 'sweeping coefficient' than usual!
voted LD
No I shouldn't!
My priority might have been the economic credibility of one party or another. The party I voted for had an education or health policy akin to my own. Perhaps I liked the anti-Brexit credentials of a particular candidate. It could be I believed Corbyn and McDonnell are dangerous. Maybe I considered the competence and arrogance of Conservative front benchers.
Brexit was not the only issue, for me at least.
If Brexit was not the key issue for you and you were willing to put aside the manifesto commitment of the party you voted for to leave the single market because you thought other issues more important, don't then complain when that manifesto commitment to leave the single market is then delivered.
But DO complain if someone then claims that YOU wanted to leave the single market because you voted for a party with that in its manifesto!
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. One where we won't reignite the Troubles, or collapse supply-chains, or rip up and have to painstakingly redo hundreds on individual treaties ranging from airline airworthiness and landing rights to zoological cruelty standards. If we want to go further, we can do it from that position.
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
It's a question what you think voters want from Brexit (they focus on substance not form). EEA preserves some of the economic benefits of EU membership but doesn't change things like FoM and ECJ.
Fundamentally if the EU were to agree to free movement of labour (i.e. No work permit) rather than free movement of people (right to move look for a job) it could all be solved. I know this is big ask for the Eurocrats (turning back the ratchet( but it is essentially a shift back to pre Maastricht
It applies the rules of the single market, alone, via the EFTA court, not the ECJ.
It doesn't adjudicate on things like crime and rights.
But, it wouldn't give us much scope to vary our regulatory regime at all, and we wouldn't have votes in the EU Council on it.
It's a possible option that'd work. But I don't think for the long-term because the risk is the EU27 vote through single-market rules, say, in financial services, that handicap us.
We could have imposed transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 like most EU nations, it was Blair's failure to do so which was a key reason for the Leave vote.
What's the evidence for that? There's no particular correlation between areas of high immigration and a high Leave vote (if anything it's the opposite) and only a minimal correlation between there being a lot of immigration and the voters thinking there's too much immigration. Leave mainly ran on hypothetical brown people from Turkey and/or Syria rather than actual Europeans.
The evidence is that there was only a turnout of more than 70% because working class voters turned out to vote Leave to reduce immigration.
It was of course Merkel's decision to open the EU doors to migrants from Syria which meant Syrian migration was also interconnected to EU/EEA free movement.
We know the voters oppose immigration, and particularly immigration by brown people. What I'm not seeing is where you get the idea that they oppose it because of transitional arrangements with EU accession countries. If there was at least a connection in the data between immigration actually happening and voters opposing immigration then we could at least speculate that it might have been the EU accession immigration that made the difference (since there was lots of it) but the data shows the opposite.
I don't think its a coincidence that the district which has the highest proportion of Eastern European immigrants also had the highest Leave vote.
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
Well, I could have mentioned all those Irishmen (like my own father and great-uncle) who fought for the Allies in both world wars and British support for various unionist terror organizations and the army shooting dead 13 innocent civilians for demanding the rights that British citizens on the mainland took for granted.
But that would have made the header too long.
And the point is that it is precisely because Ireland remembers that it does not want changes which risk the peace which has been hard-won.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
what rubbish
the current spat is becasue we have a 38 year old PM in Ireland who takes the peace for granted and is prepared to play politics with the north to shore up his government
normally FG is the sensible party re Irish UK relations.
Varadkar however has deicded to play dice
this is not the UK stirring things up on Brexit but a weak taoiseach playing foreign adventures to make himself look tough
As I say, since I am in favour of FoM I am not advocating this per se, just pointing out that EFTA membership does not of itself require us to accept FoM and does make the transition to outside the EU much easier.
How? Hypothetically, if we joined EFTA but not the EEA, we wouldn't even get automatic access to their existing third party trade deals. All it would give us is free trade with the EFTA members.
That would depend entirely on the terms upon which we joined EFTA. Of course you don't like the idea because it undermines your claims that the EU is the only answer.
I could see an EEA arrangement with a figleaf on Freedom of Movement. The government would big up the figleaf. This depends on the British wanting to extract themselves from the mess they have put themselves into and the EU wanting to keep the UK onside. I think both are probable eventually, but we're not there yet. The clusterfuck needs to play out somewhat further.
The question that Tory cheerleaders for lunacy refuse to answer - why have you turned your backs on free trade? Why are you trying to impose massive costs on British business? Why are you tell I g industry that it doesn't know what it's talking about when talking about the impacts of hard Brexit on their own industry?
As I said, political ELE. Once the Tories stop representing business and free trade, all they are left with is representing the interests of big capital - the bankers and hedge fund managers who own the party via their donations. Once the pretence of backing work has gone how will the party win the votes of working people which it needs for government? Hard to say "don't vote Labour they will bring about economic ruin" when you yourselves have just brought about economic ruin.
Small business is far keener on Brecit than big business and the City and small business represents the largest sector of workers involved in business in the UK
Only 21% of SMEs export so it can't be FTAs that attract them to Brexit.
More freedom from EU regulations and directives
I run a small business. I can't think of a single EU regulation I need freedom from. Which ones did you have in mind?
As I say, since I am in favour of FoM I am not advocating this per se, just pointing out that EFTA membership does not of itself require us to accept FoM and does make the transition to outside the EU much easier.
How? Hypothetically, if we joined EFTA but not the EEA, we wouldn't even get automatic access to their existing third party trade deals. All it would give us is free trade with the EFTA members.
That would depend entirely on the terms upon which we joined EFTA. Of course you don't like the idea because it undermines your claims that the EU is the only answer.
No, it was a serious question. If we joined EFTA how would it help? The scale of the exercise would be just as large.
We couldn't join EFTA on terms which gave us access to their third party deals because they have renegotiation clauses in them and it would need the permission of all those other countries.
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
Well, I could have mentioned all those Irishmen (like my own father and great-uncle) who fought for the Allies in both world wars and British support for various unionist terror organizations and the army shooting dead 13 innocent civilians for demanding the rights that British citizens on the mainland took for granted.
But that would have made the header too long.
And the point is that it is precisely because Ireland remembers that it does not want changes which risk the peace which has been hard-won.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
what rubbish
the current spat is becasue we have a 38 year old PM in Ireland who takes the peace for granted and is prepared to play politics with the north to shore up his government
normally FG is the sensible party re Irish UK relations.
Varadkar however has deicded to play dice
this is not the UK stirring things up on Brexit but a weak taoiseach playing foreign adventures to make himself look tough
I could see an EEA arrangement with a figleaf on Freedom of Movement. The government would big up the figleaf. This depends on the British wanting to extract themselves from the mess they have put themselves into and the EU wanting to keep the UK onside. I think both are probable eventually, but we're not there yet. The clusterfuck needs to play out somewhat further.
I come back to an observation Juncker made in comparing Cameron with Gorbachev as the two 'great destroyers' he had met, who destroyed, respectively, the USSR and the UK.
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
Well, I could have mentioned all those Irishmen (like my own father and great-uncle) who fought for the Allies in both world wars and British support for various unionist terror organizations and the army shooting dead 13 innocent civilians for demanding the rights that British citizens on the mainland took for granted.
But that would have made the header too long.
And the point is that it is precisely because Ireland remembers that it does not want changes which risk the peace which has been hard-won.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
I hope that Ireland also remembers that 5000 who left the Irish armed forces to fight Nazism in WW2 were subjected to Courts Martial for desertion by Ireland, and then blacklisted from employment by the Irish Government, and refused their military pensions. That was nastily vindictive. It cuts both ways.
For me, Varadkar's stance seems bizarre. In order to get things he already has commitments to, he is threatening to wreck the process and make sure something he doesn't want is what actually happens.
Varadkar is hoping that Brussels will bung Ireland some more money.
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
A majority of seats across the UK were won by the ngle market.
You're clutching at straws! The "in or out of the EEA" discussion hardly featured in the GE. Compared with Andy's argument, your point is uncharacteristically weak.
Surely you can come up with a better argument than that?
It hardly featured because Corbyn backed leaving the EEA too!
So voters weren't voting on that issue but on other issues. The fact they voted Tory or Labour doesn't mean they favoured leaving the EEA or even the EU. Most Labour voters are Remainers. Your argument just doesn't stack up and Andy's does.
No EEA.
Speak for yourself! I for one didn't vote Conservative or Labour to leave the single market. Your statements today have a higher 'sweeping coefficient' than usual!
voted LD
No I shouldn't!
My priority might have been the economic credibility of one party or another. The party I voted for had an education or health policy akin to my own. Perhaps I liked the anti-Brexit credentials of a particular candidate. It could be I believed Corbyn and McDonnell are dangerous. Maybe I considered the competence and arrogance of Conservative front benchers.
Brexit was not the only issue, for me at least.
If Brexit was not the key issue for you and you were willing to put aside the manifesto commitment of the party you voted for to leave the single market because you thought other issues more important, don't then complain when that manifesto commitment to leave the single market is then delivered.
But DO complain if someone then claims that YOU wanted to leave the single market because you voted for a party with that in its manifesto!
No, party manifestos are there for a reason, I would never vote for a party if I fundamentally disagreed with a key term of its manifesto as that is what the party intends to deliver in government. If I disagreed with that term that strongly I would vote for another party that did take a position on the issue in its manifesto I agreed with.
I could see an EEA arrangement with a figleaf on Freedom of Movement. The government would big up the figleaf. This depends on the British wanting to extract themselves from the mess they have put themselves into and the EU wanting to keep the UK onside. I think both are probable eventually, but we're not there yet. The clusterfuck needs to play out somewhat further.
I come back to an observation Juncker made in comparing Cameron with Gorbachev as the two 'great destroyers' he had met, who destroyed, respectively, the USSR and the UK.
That would be the UK still standing over a year since Cameron left and saw unionist parties win most votes in all 4 countries of the UK at the post Brexit general election?
The question that Tory cheerleaders for lunacy refuse to answer - why have you turned your backs on free trade? Why are you trying to impose massive costs on British business? Why are you tell I g industry that it doesn't know what it's talking about when talking about the impacts of hard Brexit on their own industry?
As I said, political ELE. Once the Tories stop representing business and free trade, all they are left with is representing the interests of big capital - the bankers and hedge fund managers who own the party via their donations. Once the pretence of backing work has gone how will the party win the votes of working people which it needs for government? Hard to say "don't vote Labour they will bring about economic ruin" when you yourselves have just brought about economic ruin.
Small business is far keener on Brecit than big business and the City and small business represents the largest sector of workers involved in business in the UK
Only 21% of SMEs export so it can't be FTAs that attract them to Brexit.
More freedom from EU regulations and directives
I run a small business. I can't think of a single EU regulation I need freedom from. Which ones did you have in mind?
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
Well, I could have mentioned all those Irishmen (like my own father and great-uncle) who fought for the Allies in both world wars and British support for various unionist terror organizations and the army shooting dead 13 innocent civilians for demanding the rights that British citizens on the mainland took for granted.
But that would have made the header too long.
And the point is that it is precisely because Ireland remembers that it does not want changes which risk the peace which has been hard-won.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
what rubbish
the current spat is becasue we have a 38 year old PM in Ireland who takes the peace for granted and is prepared to play politics with the north to shore up his government
normally FG is the sensible party re Irish UK relations.
Varadkar however has deicded to play dice
this is not the UK stirring things up on Brexit but a weak taoiseach playing foreign adventures to make himself look tough
And when TMay goes on her weekly visit to HMQ and tells her that NI has decided to lose the N part and go under Dublin's Rule rather than Westminster's......
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
Well, I could have mentioned all those Irishmen (like my own father and great-uncle) who fought for the Allies in both world wars and British support for various unionist terror organizations and the army shooting dead 13 innocent civilians for demanding the rights that British citizens on the mainland took for granted.
But that would have made the header too long.
And the point is that it is precisely because Ireland remembers that it does not want changes which risk the peace which has been hard-won.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
what rubbish
the current spat is becasue we have a 38 year old PM in Ireland who takes the peace for granted and is prepared to play politics with the north to shore up his government
normally FG is the sensible party re Irish UK relations.
Varadkar however has deicded to play dice
this is not the UK stirring things up on Brexit but a weak taoiseach playing foreign adventures to make himself look tough
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
Well, I could have mentioned all those Irishmen (like my own father and great-uncle) who fought for the Allies in both world wars and British support for various unionist terror organizations and the army shooting dead 13 innocent civilians for demanding the rights that British citizens on the mainland took for granted.
But that would have made the header too long.
And the point is that it is precisely because Ireland remembers that it does not want changes which risk the peace which has been hard-won.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
what rubbish
the current spat is becasue we have a 38 year old PM in Ireland who takes the peace for granted and is prepared to play politics with the north to shore up his government
normally FG is the sensible party re Irish UK relations.
Varadkar however has deicded to play dice
this is not the UK stirring things up on Brexit but a weak taoiseach playing foreign adventures to make himself look tough
And when TMay goes on her weekly visit to HMQ and tells her that NI has decided to lose the N part and go under Dublin's Rule rather than Westminster's......
Clearly not given NI has twice given the unionist DUP most votes and seats in 2 post Brexit elections on a firm commitment to maintain the 'N' part and May is now reliant on that same DUP to stay in power.
I could see an EEA arrangement with a figleaf on Freedom of Movement. The government would big up the figleaf. This depends on the British wanting to extract themselves from the mess they have put themselves into and the EU wanting to keep the UK onside. I think both are probable eventually, but we're not there yet. The clusterfuck needs to play out somewhat further.
I come back to an observation Juncker made in comparing Cameron with Gorbachev as the two 'great destroyers' he had met, who destroyed, respectively, the USSR and the UK.
That would be the UK still standing over a year since Cameron left and saw unionist parties win most votes in all 4 countries of the UK at the post Brexit general election?
So what? European Unionist parties won a landslide in 2015. How did that turn out?
The question that Tory cheerleaders for lunacy refuse to answer - why have you turned your backs on free trade? Why are you trying to impose massive costs on British business? Why are you tell I g industry that it doesn't know what it's talking about when talking about the impacts of hard Brexit on their own industry?
As I said, political ELE. Once the Tories stop representing business and free trade, all they are left with is representing the interests of big capital - the bankers and hedge fund managers who own the party via their donations. Once the pretence of backing work has gone how will the party win the votes of working people which it needs for government? Hard to say "don't vote Labour they will bring about economic ruin" when you yourselves have just brought about economic ruin.
Small business is far keener on Brecit than big business and the City and small business represents the largest sector of workers involved in business in the UK
Only 21% of SMEs export so it can't be FTAs that attract them to Brexit.
More freedom from EU regulations and directives
I run a small business. I can't think of a single EU regulation I need freedom from. Which ones did you have in mind?
Only 200? There are probably 200 small firms in my council ward let alone the country. Which regulations will give me more freedom when they are withdrawn?
Article waffling on the history of how awful the Uk has behaved surprisingly doesn’t mention Dublin’s overt support for the Germans during WWII. Their behaviour during the 70s and 80s towards the terrorist gangster mobs should be to their eternal shame too.
Strong sense of deja vu for this latest tiff. The ROI are not a home nation and aren’t our friends.
Well, I could have mentioned all those Irishmen (like my own father and great-uncle) who fought for the Allies in both world wars and British support for various unionist terror organizations and the army shooting dead 13 innocent civilians for demanding the rights that British citizens on the mainland took for granted.
But that would have made the header too long.
And the point is that it is precisely because Ireland remembers that it does not want changes which risk the peace which has been hard-won.
It has often been said that the Irish remember too much. But the Enhlish should I think remember a little more.
what rubbish
the current spat is becasue we have a 38 year old PM in Ireland who takes the peace for granted and is prepared to play politics with the north to shore up his government
normally FG is the sensible party re Irish UK relations.
Varadkar however has deicded to play dice
this is not the UK stirring things up on Brexit but a weak taoiseach playing foreign adventures to make himself look tough
Actually there probably is. Just not a solution current EU rules/dogma would allow to be agreed
You meant, just not a solution current Tory policy/dogma would allow to be agreed. The rest of the Europe/World look on in amazement that we are led by those with asinine intelligence or in cahoots with the Russians
I could see an EEA arrangement with a figleaf on Freedom of Movement. The government would big up the figleaf. This depends on the British wanting to extract themselves from the mess they have put themselves into and the EU wanting to keep the UK onside. I think both are probable eventually, but we're not there yet. The clusterfuck needs to play out somewhat further.
I come back to an observation Juncker made in comparing Cameron with Gorbachev as the two 'great destroyers' he had met, who destroyed, respectively, the USSR and the UK.
He’s not thinking of himself making it a triumvirate?
I could see an EEA arrangement with a figleaf on Freedom of Movement. The government would big up the figleaf. This depends on the British wanting to extract themselves from the mess they have put themselves into and the EU wanting to keep the UK onside. I think both are probable eventually, but we're not there yet. The clusterfuck needs to play out somewhat further.
I come back to an observation Juncker made in comparing Cameron with Gorbachev as the two 'great destroyers' he had met, who destroyed, respectively, the USSR and the UK.
That would be the UK still standing over a year since Cameron left and saw unionist parties win most votes in all 4 countries of the UK at the post Brexit general election?
So what? European Unionist parties won a landslide in 2015. How did that turn out?
The Tories had a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on leaving the EU in 2015 which they delivered when they won an overall majority of seats in the UK at that general election.
No party with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on leaving the UK won a majority of seats in any of the 4 countries of the UK at the 2017 general election.
The question that Tory cheerleaders for lunacy refuse to answer - why have you turned your backs on free trade? Why are you trying to impose massive costs on British business? Why are you tell I g industry that it doesn't know what it's talking about when talking about the impacts of hard Brexit on their own industry?
As I said, political ELE. Once the Tories stop representing business and free trade, all they are left with is representing the interests of big capital - the bankers and hedge fund managers who own the party via their donations. Once the pretence of backing work has gone how will the party win the votes of working people which it needs for government? Hard to say "don't vote Labour they will bring about economic ruin" when you yourselves have just brought about economic ruin.
Small business is far keener on Brecit than big business and the City and small business represents the largest sector of workers involved in business in the UK
Only 21% of SMEs export so it can't be FTAs that attract them to Brexit.
More freedom from EU regulations and directives
I run a small business. I can't think of a single EU regulation I need freedom from. Which ones did you have in mind?
Only 200? There are probably 200 small firms in my council ward let alone the country. Which regulations will give me more freedom when they are withdrawn?
Perhaps you should have asked them before 52% of the country voted to leave the EU
The solution to both this and the rest of the seemingly intractable problems with Brexit is simple and all-but-trivial: we move to the EEA, at least initially. It was designed as a half-way house between being outside the EU and being inside it, it's straightforward, and it's proven.
The Leavers insist it is "Brexit in name only", or some such drivel, but the referendum question was on leaving the EU and only on leaving the EU. It doesn't matter what some hardline Brexiteers want to claim the result "means" or doesn't mean; it doesn't matter what they want to claim is and isn't "real Brexit" - they've been insisting the country respects the democratic mandate, so they can also respect the democratic mandate. It says "leave the EU" and being outside the EU yet inside the EEA is leaving the EU. Just ask Norway - they seem to accept that EEA membership is not identical to EU membership. They've had two referendums on whether to change their status and insisted both times that they like it as-is just fine. EEA is NOT equivalent to EU.
If Leavers want a full-on hard/chaotic/crash Brexit (delete word as applicable), they can get a democratic mandate for it. Let them push for a further referendum on the destination, if they choose. We've chosen to leave the EU. Fine. Let's leave it for the most straightforward destination. One where we won't reignite the Troubles, or collapse supply-chains, or rip up and have to painstakingly redo hundreds on individual treaties ranging from airline airworthiness and landing rights to zoological cruelty standards. If we want to go further, we can do it from that position.
If Leavers want a second referendum, let them argue for it, or accept EEA status.
That means, freedom to make trade deals, ending ECJ jurisdiction, extra controls on immigration, and saving budgetary contributions.
You can obtain small wins on most of those under EEA-EFTA, and absolutely on trade deals.
As someone of immigrant stock myself, I have come to the view that it is critical to control immigration. The current immigration situation toxifies our politics and pushes it to extremes. I think it's a big part of why social democratic politics has collapsed.
I could see an EEA arrangement with a figleaf on Freedom of Movement. The government would big up the figleaf. This depends on the British wanting to extract themselves from the mess they have put themselves into and the EU wanting to keep the UK onside. I think both are probable eventually, but we're not there yet. The clusterfuck needs to play out somewhat further.
I come back to an observation Juncker made in comparing Cameron with Gorbachev as the two 'great destroyers' he had met, who destroyed, respectively, the USSR and the UK.
That would be the UK still standing over a year since Cameron left and saw unionist parties win most votes in all 4 countries of the UK at the post Brexit general election?
So what? European Unionist parties won a landslide in 2015. How did that turn out?
The Tories had a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on leaving the EU in 2015 which they delivered when they won an overall majority of seats in the UK at that general election.
No party with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on leaving the UK won a majority of seats in any of the 4 countries of the UK at the 2017 general election.
Comments
FoM - we could easily apply significantly more restrictions than we already do. If FoM was a key element of the answer, then we asked the wrong question in the first place. Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 112-113 of the EEA Agreement, anyway.
"Democracy!" is a great shout when you're the one who gets to interpret what it means, I guess.
If voters cared strongly about staying permanently in the single market they would have voted for the LDs, Greens or SNP who did have manifesto commitments to stay permanently in the EEA.
https://twitter.com/CER_Grant/status/934203107457806336
I thought he'd probably been sin-binned (not sure what gave me that idea) but it looks like his account is active... Hopefully all is well.
maybe we can go back to bombing the bejasus out of each other since it seems to keep everyone happy
After a decade or so and we have got EU immigration under control then rejoining EFTA and the EEA can be seriously considered but not now.
Strangely, that didn't stop those who wanted to leave from insisting on pushing for a separate referendum. What need for the referendum at all, if the voters had voted for staying in the EU in all those manifestos?
Yet they continued to ratchet up the pressure on Cameron to offer a referendum on leaving and - unbelievably - it turned out that the previous apparent overwhelming majority in favour of all of those manifestos to stay in was, when the subject was separated out - illusory.
Huh.
I guess it's not valid the other way around, though.
Awkward....
It's an easy transitional arrangement at the very least.
Going loco: Stumbled over 'Puddles Pity Party'. Would buy the CD but the cost is pfft.
Germans now figuring how to nobble Paris as Europe's main finance centre
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article170964657/Der-Kampf-um-Europas-Finanzmacht-beginnt.html
Voters vote for a variety of reasons (personalities, policies that are highlighted in the media or by politicians, party loyalty) but not for every last item in the manifesto! That is straw clutching.
What is sad is the anti-Brexit bias of the news channels means the presenter nods along rather than pointing out the hypocrisy.
Clearly not enough voters cared strongly about staying permanently in the EEA and leaving free movement permanently in place.
It was of course Merkel's decision to open the EU doors to migrants from Syria which meant Syrian migration was also interconnected to EU/EEA free movement.
Personally of course I would like us to go further and join the EEA as well but even under your proscriptions, EFTA membership should be acceptable.
Has the EU's attitude to Brexit weakened or hardened the resolve for Brexit in the UK
So you are talking about fulfilling the will of the referendum and ending FoM on the basis of 45% of the 52% who voted Leave. The numbers start to dwindle rapidly.
But if staying in honours the EUREf, and solves many of the problems as Andy suggests, why fight against the idea with specious arguments about manifestos?
Short of thinking that Brexit can be reversed, the Irish stance just seems likely to result in the worst outcome for themselves. And whereas many people like to debate whether a complete collapse in talks will be worse for the UK or the EU, surely nobody doubts it would be disastrous for the Republic (and Holland, Belgium etc)
Though Switzerland largely has free movement in return for the bilateral agreements it has with EU anyway, the Swiss just give preference to local workers first for jobs.
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/uk/1200955/voters-want-end-free-movement-also-continued-free-trade-brexit-deal/
Just moving to Zurich left me £4.5k out of pocket before I'd started work because I had to get the insurance policy.
The difference is that Switzerland doesn't have universal healthcare and nor is it a welfare state. Free movement isn't a big deal because the bar is set so high. If I can't afford rent, I'm homeless, if I can't afford healthcare I get sent home, if I'm unemployed I have to live off my savings and eventually get sent home if I'm no longer able to prove I'm self-sufficient.
Until the UK adopts these measures and raises the bar of entry to £5k like it is in Switzerland then free movement is an issue.
As it stands the bilateral treaty between Switzerland and the EU contains exactly the same provision for free movement as we are subjected to in the UK. If anything the issue Swiss people have isn't with low income and unskilled jobs being unavailable, it's highly skilled, high income jobs that Swiss people are worried about and German immigrants living in Germany but working in Switzerland. That has become a huge issue, people feel that the German workers are not contributing to the Swiss economy but benefiting from the higher wages. I expect residency rules to change to reflect that (must live in the country for X many days to have a job).
The NIESR poll allowed people to pick mutually exclusive outcomes. What it did not do is ask a direct choice question - FoM or Single Market. That is the only question that matters as it is the only one that has a realistic outcome.
As long as you continue to ask voters questions that allow for mutually exclusive outcomes you will never get a solution.
My priority might have been the economic credibility of one party or another. The party I voted for had an education or health policy akin to my own. Perhaps I liked the anti-Brexit credentials of a particular candidate. It could be I believed Corbyn and McDonnell are dangerous. Maybe I considered the competence and arrogance of Conservative front benchers.
Brexit was not the only issue, for me at least.
As I say, since I am in favour of FoM I am not advocating this per se, just pointing out that EFTA membership does not of itself require us to accept FoM and does make the transition to outside the EU much easier.
Perhaps it's not just ultra Leavers that can be tone-deaf.
That means, freedom to make trade deals, ending ECJ jurisdiction, extra controls on immigration, and saving budgetary contributions.
You can obtain small wins on most of those under EEA-EFTA, and absolutely on trade deals.
Today is the 75th anniversary of the first public screening of what is, for me, the greatest film ever made.
Happy Birthday Casablanca.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWaqUVac3M
https://twitter.com/RidgeOnSunday/status/934728733092540417
It doesn't adjudicate on things like crime and rights.
But, it wouldn't give us much scope to vary our regulatory regime at all, and we wouldn't have votes in the EU Council on it.
It's a possible option that'd work. But I don't think for the long-term because the risk is the EU27 vote through single-market rules, say, in financial services, that handicap us.
We couldn't join EFTA on terms which gave us access to their third party deals because they have renegotiation clauses in them and it would need the permission of all those other countries.
https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/934757414611685381
The rest of the Europe/World look on in amazement that we are led by those with asinine intelligence or in cahoots with the Russians
THE
ALTERNATIVE
IS?
:Th'ud-hits-table:
Ok.
No party with a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on leaving the UK won a majority of seats in any of the 4 countries of the UK at the 2017 general election.