[Politics] Brexit

[Neville's Breakfast]

Membership of, or access to, both involve allowing free movement of people as well. In the full interview you kindly provided, Dan Hannan mentions Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.

For absolute clarity, access to, does not mean selling and buying on WTO terms, or any other negotiated set of tariffs, it means having no customs clearance, no import or export duties and no blocks of any kind on our exports or imports with the EU. If you think otherwise then it is you that fails to understand what Dan Hannan was saying.

If you accept that access to the single market will require free movement of people as well, can you now see that access is very much threatened by those insisting that leaving the EU must give us control of immigration?

Access to the single market doesn't mean anything of the sort. You are describing membership. The rest of the world has access to the single market in assorted (negotiated) terms without accepting the conditions
you describe.
I also do not accept that access means the free movement of people. Merkel has already set the scene for discussions on this subject.
There is a deal to be done here and it will likely keep most people happy whilst disappointing both those on one side who wish to end immigration completely and also those on the other who believe that EU rules are fixed in time forever with no negotiating room. Quite simply the debate has moved on from simply quoting current EU rules and claiming a flexible deal is impossible.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

Claiming Merkel's comments earlier this week have significantly moved the goal posts is seriously clutching at straws.

 

[Blue3]

Individual EU associate membership is a possible way forward

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Don't think this has been posted and it's good news. Almost sure the importance of London role processing euros was spoken about by remainers here who were understandably worried about its potential loss. This should make them happy.

The Guardian: Brexit unlikely to mean loss of City's role in processing deals in euros. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwguCAvzA


And although the capital was staunchly remain it is benefiting from Brexit already:

Evening Standard: Pound to Euro exchange rate after Brexit sees record tourist spending in London. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/p...cord-tourism-spending-in-london-a3397846.html

 

[Lincoln Imp]

perhaps yougov when asking "how well or badly do you think the government are doing at negotiating Britains exit from the European Union " should have asked people who actually knew article 50 hasnt been invoked and negotiations havnt started........just a thought.

Perhaps the government when asking "do you want to remain or leave the EU" should have asked people who actually understood the issues and potential consequences.......just a thought.

 

[The Clamp]

The public are too thick to vote on matters like Brexit. How do we know this? The result.

 

[GT49er]

Perhaps the government when asking "do you want to remain or leave the EU" should have asked people who actually understood the issues and potential consequences.......just a thought.

End universal suffrage now! We don't want any of that democracy carp round here!

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Don't think this has been posted and it's good news. Almost sure the importance of London role processing euros was spoken about by remainers here who were understandably worried about its potential loss. This should make them happy.

The Guardian: Brexit unlikely to mean loss of City's role in processing deals in euros. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwguCAvzA


And although the capital was staunchly remain it is benefiting from Brexit already:

Evening Standard: Pound to Euro exchange rate after Brexit sees record tourist spending in London. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/p...cord-tourism-spending-in-london-a3397846.html

Unlikely ....

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Perhaps the government when asking "do you want to remain or leave the EU" should have asked people who actually understood the issues and potential consequences.......just a thought.

The public are too thick to vote on matters like Brexit. How do we know this? The result.

*sigh*

 

[vegster]

End universal suffrage now! We don't want any of that democracy carp round here!

This is not the Plaice for that talk.

 

[Soulman]

The public are too thick to vote on matters like Brexit. How do we know this? The result.

So there are over 17 million thick people eh.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

So there are over 17 million thick people eh.

There are 32 million with less than average intelligence in this country.

 

[Titanic]

There are 32 million with less than average intelligence in this country.

and on average they have slightly less than one testicle. So what?

 

[beorhthelm]

The public are too thick to vote on matters like Brexit. How do we know this? The result.

speak for yourself.

though you are probably right and we should also consider if who is qualified to vote at all. a friend of the missus didnt know who May is, pays no attention to politics or the news (which sounds quite serene). yet she votes in all elections apparently, so Odin know what she bases her vote on, presumably the nicest logo on the ballot.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Perhaps the government when asking "do you want to remain or leave the EU" should have asked people who actually understood the issues and potential consequences.......just a thought.

The public are too thick to vote on matters like Brexit. How do we know this? The result.

Yep, they knew how to deal with these matters in the nineteenth century. Only educated gentlemen should be allowed to vote and of course they must vote the right way... we will be checking that result you mark my words !!!!!!

 

[studio150]

So there are over 17 million thick people eh.

Correct

 

[The Clamp]

Yep, they knew how to deal with these matters in the nineteenth century. Only educated gentlemen should be allowed to vote and of course they must vote the right way... we will be checking that result you mark my words !!!!!!

Daft comment. We should never have had a referendum on something when we are not furnished with all the details and possible outcomes.

 

[BigGully]

Daft comment. We should never have had a referendum on something when we are not furnished with all the details and possible outcomes.

Whats wrong with you people, you couldnt give a monkeys about the intricacies of the detail of the vote, you only care that you didnt win.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Whats wrong with you people, you couldnt give a monkeys about the intricacies of the detail of the vote, you only care that you didnt win.

This. That's why the talk so often degenerates to:

'the voters who voted leave were thick'
'old people shouldn't be allowed to vote'
'it's complicated so there shouldn't be a vote'
'if they'd understood the result would be different'
'no-one has a plan'
'there never should have been a vote'
'I don't like referendums'
'Boris doesn't like prosecco'.

All that reasoning boils down to an inability to accept a fair and democratic vote. There would likely be no thread here if the result had gone the other way. I certainly would have accepted the result even if others didn't, as I believe in democracy, I am very shocked that so many of my countrymen do not share that point of view.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Daft comment. We should never have had a referendum on something when we are not furnished with all the details and possible outcomes.

So presumably you also disagree with holding the 1975 referendum ?