The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2
Discussion
don4l said:
You cannot help yourself, can you?
PS. I thought that I had responded(positively) to the olive branch. It is possible that you missed my reply, or it is equally possible that I didn't click submit. This thread is moving very fast.
If you are an active member of AMOC, then it is quite likely that we are going to meet.
We will get on absolutely fine.
On the postscriptum, I apologise if I missed your acceptance of the olive branch. Not currently active in AMOC, although I did join.PS. I thought that I had responded(positively) to the olive branch. It is possible that you missed my reply, or it is equally possible that I didn't click submit. This thread is moving very fast.
If you are an active member of AMOC, then it is quite likely that we are going to meet.
We will get on absolutely fine.
A lot less venom in all of this would be good for everyone.
markh1973 said:
don4l said:
markh1973 said:
don4l said:
For who, then?
Really, nobody thought that the NHS was going to get £350m a week. That is just plain silly.
I do sometimes wonder why you write such nonsense. You must think that we are all as thick as two short planks.
Then again, the remain side tried to tell us that there would be cuts in the NHS if we left. By the end of the campaign you were reduced to claiming that we wouldn't bve spending an extra £350m a week. Have you any idea how utterly pathetic that looks?
You told us that 3.3m people would lose their jobs if we Brexited. Than turned out to be balderdash.
You told us that Britain could have no global influence outside the EU. More Nonsense. We will, as you well know, retake our seat on the WTO and keep our seat on the Security Council.
You told us that the EU had kept the peace in Europe, whereas, as we saw in the former Yugoslavia, it was NATO that kept the peace. The useless EU did nothing at all.
You weren't happy telling all those lies. You then had to heap insults on us. We were told that we were uneducated, lower class, pale and old. Zod, you seemed especially happy to peddle that nonsense. Shame on you.
When a lunatic murdered an MP, you tried to suggest that his hatred had been stoked by the Leave campaign. This really shocked me. Just how low is it possible to go?
Do you apologise for all the lies, insults and smears?
No. You just carry on as if you hadn't been beaten.
As you can probably guess, I'm a bit fed up of all the lies.
I'm fed up with the insults.
If you must carry on with the lies and insults, which I know you must, could I at least ask that we don't get any more sneering?
TIA.
So when will you be apologising for all of the insults that you threw around at anyone who wanted to remain?Really, nobody thought that the NHS was going to get £350m a week. That is just plain silly.
I do sometimes wonder why you write such nonsense. You must think that we are all as thick as two short planks.
Then again, the remain side tried to tell us that there would be cuts in the NHS if we left. By the end of the campaign you were reduced to claiming that we wouldn't bve spending an extra £350m a week. Have you any idea how utterly pathetic that looks?
You told us that 3.3m people would lose their jobs if we Brexited. Than turned out to be balderdash.
You told us that Britain could have no global influence outside the EU. More Nonsense. We will, as you well know, retake our seat on the WTO and keep our seat on the Security Council.
You told us that the EU had kept the peace in Europe, whereas, as we saw in the former Yugoslavia, it was NATO that kept the peace. The useless EU did nothing at all.
You weren't happy telling all those lies. You then had to heap insults on us. We were told that we were uneducated, lower class, pale and old. Zod, you seemed especially happy to peddle that nonsense. Shame on you.
When a lunatic murdered an MP, you tried to suggest that his hatred had been stoked by the Leave campaign. This really shocked me. Just how low is it possible to go?
Do you apologise for all the lies, insults and smears?
No. You just carry on as if you hadn't been beaten.
As you can probably guess, I'm a bit fed up of all the lies.
I'm fed up with the insults.
If you must carry on with the lies and insults, which I know you must, could I at least ask that we don't get any more sneering?
TIA.
Simply asserting that I should apologise is rather silly if you cannot say what I should apologise for.
You deny repeatedly calling them traitors - including by default WWII veterans who voted remain?
You deny insulting people voting remain by calling them bedwetters?
However, if I said anything that you feel was untrue, then I am happy to discuss it.
FiF said:
Not a factor, campaigned on an exit plan which as firstcstep, and for dome years includes retention of freedom of movement of labour. So not let down, not misled.
Leave has now moved from 'the UK does not need preferential access to the single market' to 'the UK should get preferential access to the single market' so if that situation required a high degree of compromise (most likely involving controls from Brussels), would you rather return to the original pledge? FiF said:
This is some interesting information from Richard North. He's put together a piece which consolidates some information that was discovered very late in the campaign and led to a last minute revision of Flexcit.
He's calling it the Liechtenstein solution, which suggests that EU officials weren't telling the whole truth about freedom if movement. Claims of "it's non negotiable" isn't quite the whole truth it seems, as they have negotiated with one of the three EFTA/EEA states to suspend freedom of movement.
What you say? Well it seems that is the case, and of course the comparison between the tiny state of Liechtenstein and UK is a difficult one, a micro state of population similar to my local town, unable to accommodate unlimited immigration. Which leads to the emergency brake, article 112. Which still applies, a quota system in place, and a precedent set.
Of course UK is at the other end of the spectrum in size, and I'm still of the opinion that the favoured first stage on a controlled exit is to rejoin EFTA, accept the compromises that will provide continued access and membership of EEA, with all the various restrictions and responsibilities that entails. Clearly do not go for this as any part of exit negotiations, but article 112 is clearly part of the EFTA/EEA agreement.
Clearly the unelected EU leaders will have their view, but proper politicians who answer to voters might have different views. Personally not sure if we'd ever get a similar deal as outlined here but who knows, just because... link
Interesting. I take from that and the comments underneath that we could invoke article 112 unilaterally and therefore a limit on immigration would not be up for negotiation. So the only negotiating that need be done is whether we can remain in the EEA and join EFTA - can anyone see the EU not letting us?He's calling it the Liechtenstein solution, which suggests that EU officials weren't telling the whole truth about freedom if movement. Claims of "it's non negotiable" isn't quite the whole truth it seems, as they have negotiated with one of the three EFTA/EEA states to suspend freedom of movement.
What you say? Well it seems that is the case, and of course the comparison between the tiny state of Liechtenstein and UK is a difficult one, a micro state of population similar to my local town, unable to accommodate unlimited immigration. Which leads to the emergency brake, article 112. Which still applies, a quota system in place, and a precedent set.
Of course UK is at the other end of the spectrum in size, and I'm still of the opinion that the favoured first stage on a controlled exit is to rejoin EFTA, accept the compromises that will provide continued access and membership of EEA, with all the various restrictions and responsibilities that entails. Clearly do not go for this as any part of exit negotiations, but article 112 is clearly part of the EFTA/EEA agreement.
Clearly the unelected EU leaders will have their view, but proper politicians who answer to voters might have different views. Personally not sure if we'd ever get a similar deal as outlined here but who knows, just because... link
king arthur said:
FiF said:
This is some interesting information from Richard North. He's put together a piece which consolidates some information that was discovered very late in the campaign and led to a last minute revision of Flexcit.
He's calling it the Liechtenstein solution, which suggests that EU officials weren't telling the whole truth about freedom if movement. Claims of "it's non negotiable" isn't quite the whole truth it seems, as they have negotiated with one of the three EFTA/EEA states to suspend freedom of movement.
What you say? Well it seems that is the case, and of course the comparison between the tiny state of Liechtenstein and UK is a difficult one, a micro state of population similar to my local town, unable to accommodate unlimited immigration. Which leads to the emergency brake, article 112. Which still applies, a quota system in place, and a precedent set.
Of course UK is at the other end of the spectrum in size, and I'm still of the opinion that the favoured first stage on a controlled exit is to rejoin EFTA, accept the compromises that will provide continued access and membership of EEA, with all the various restrictions and responsibilities that entails. Clearly do not go for this as any part of exit negotiations, but article 112 is clearly part of the EFTA/EEA agreement.
Clearly the unelected EU leaders will have their view, but proper politicians who answer to voters might have different views. Personally not sure if we'd ever get a similar deal as outlined here but who knows, just because... link
Interesting. I take from that and the comments underneath that we could invoke article 112 unilaterally and therefore a limit on immigration would not be up for negotiation. So the only negotiating that need be done is whether we can remain in the EEA and join EFTA - can anyone see the EU not letting us?He's calling it the Liechtenstein solution, which suggests that EU officials weren't telling the whole truth about freedom if movement. Claims of "it's non negotiable" isn't quite the whole truth it seems, as they have negotiated with one of the three EFTA/EEA states to suspend freedom of movement.
What you say? Well it seems that is the case, and of course the comparison between the tiny state of Liechtenstein and UK is a difficult one, a micro state of population similar to my local town, unable to accommodate unlimited immigration. Which leads to the emergency brake, article 112. Which still applies, a quota system in place, and a precedent set.
Of course UK is at the other end of the spectrum in size, and I'm still of the opinion that the favoured first stage on a controlled exit is to rejoin EFTA, accept the compromises that will provide continued access and membership of EEA, with all the various restrictions and responsibilities that entails. Clearly do not go for this as any part of exit negotiations, but article 112 is clearly part of the EFTA/EEA agreement.
Clearly the unelected EU leaders will have their view, but proper politicians who answer to voters might have different views. Personally not sure if we'd ever get a similar deal as outlined here but who knows, just because... link
im not disilusioned enough to believe poltitions and their promises, show me some they have kept too. and i will be able to show twice as many they have back tracked on.. and me and everyone i know are jumping up and down with joy that we should be leaving, thats if the lying arseoles dont try to wriggle out it. lets wait and see if any conservative polititian has the balls to take us out.
king arthur said:
FiF said:
This is some interesting information from Richard North. He's put together a piece which consolidates some information that was discovered very late in the campaign and led to a last minute revision of Flexcit.
He's calling it the Liechtenstein solution, which suggests that EU officials weren't telling the whole truth about freedom if movement. Claims of "it's non negotiable" isn't quite the whole truth it seems, as they have negotiated with one of the three EFTA/EEA states to suspend freedom of movement.
What you say? Well it seems that is the case, and of course the comparison between the tiny state of Liechtenstein and UK is a difficult one, a micro state of population similar to my local town, unable to accommodate unlimited immigration. Which leads to the emergency brake, article 112. Which still applies, a quota system in place, and a precedent set.
Of course UK is at the other end of the spectrum in size, and I'm still of the opinion that the favoured first stage on a controlled exit is to rejoin EFTA, accept the compromises that will provide continued access and membership of EEA, with all the various restrictions and responsibilities that entails. Clearly do not go for this as any part of exit negotiations, but article 112 is clearly part of the EFTA/EEA agreement.
Clearly the unelected EU leaders will have their view, but proper politicians who answer to voters might have different views. Personally not sure if we'd ever get a similar deal as outlined here but who knows, just because... link
Interesting. I take from that and the comments underneath that we could invoke article 112 unilaterally and therefore a limit on immigration would not be up for negotiation. So the only negotiating that need be done is whether we can remain in the EEA and join EFTA - can anyone see the EU not letting us?He's calling it the Liechtenstein solution, which suggests that EU officials weren't telling the whole truth about freedom if movement. Claims of "it's non negotiable" isn't quite the whole truth it seems, as they have negotiated with one of the three EFTA/EEA states to suspend freedom of movement.
What you say? Well it seems that is the case, and of course the comparison between the tiny state of Liechtenstein and UK is a difficult one, a micro state of population similar to my local town, unable to accommodate unlimited immigration. Which leads to the emergency brake, article 112. Which still applies, a quota system in place, and a precedent set.
Of course UK is at the other end of the spectrum in size, and I'm still of the opinion that the favoured first stage on a controlled exit is to rejoin EFTA, accept the compromises that will provide continued access and membership of EEA, with all the various restrictions and responsibilities that entails. Clearly do not go for this as any part of exit negotiations, but article 112 is clearly part of the EFTA/EEA agreement.
Clearly the unelected EU leaders will have their view, but proper politicians who answer to voters might have different views. Personally not sure if we'd ever get a similar deal as outlined here but who knows, just because... link
We are a signatory of the EEA Agreement as a member State of the EU, as the treaty is a trade treaty covering areas of competence in treaty-making of the EU as an entity and of the Member States.
To become a party to the Treaty as a non-EU State (an EEA-EFTA State/ party of the second part in the agreement) we have first to rejoin EFTA by acceding with the agreement of the other EFTA States (Norway, Iceland, Leichtenstein and Switzerland) to the EFTA Convention and then, with the agreement of the EU, 27 Member States of the EU, and the EFTA countries apart from Switzerland, accede to the EEA agreement.
The accession would have a protocol specifying the contribution we have to make to the EU budget (Norway's per capita contribution is similar to our current contribution to the EU), and any other special deals - e.g. if there were anything to address immigration for us specifically, rather than a change to the Treaty for all non-EU countries.
Zod said:
(Norway's per capita contribution is similar to our current contribution to the EU)
Does that vary with source as happens? It's tricky comparing a nation within the EU to one outside, and since the UK’s GDP per capita is lower than Norway’s, about two-thirds in 2015 according to the IMF, it's likely the UK would negotiate a lower contribution in a post-Brexit arrangement. FiF said:
Norway's per capita contribution is about half ours, Iceland's lower still as they don't contribute to as many research programmes as Norway choose to do.
It's about the same from what I've foundAccording to the CBI Norway pay €100 and we currently pay €180 per capita. €100 makes Norway the 10th highest contributor to the EU. Whether those are net or gross they don't say, but they do acknowledge our payments would be lower out than in.
Edited by minimoog on Tuesday 28th June 13:04
Anyone else think that winding up other MEPs isn't really the best start to figuring this stuff out?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ule97jkRA
I wonder whether Farage is potentially making life harder for the UK post-referendum with this kind of talk and should, perhaps, wind his neck in a little now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ule97jkRA
I wonder whether Farage is potentially making life harder for the UK post-referendum with this kind of talk and should, perhaps, wind his neck in a little now?
Funk said:
Anyone else think that winding up other MEPs isn't really the best start to figuring this stuff out?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ule97jkRA
I wonder whether Farage is potentially making life harder for the UK post-referendum with this kind of talk and should, perhaps, wind his neck in a little now?
Yes, bad cop, good cop routine being played out for all we know.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ule97jkRA
I wonder whether Farage is potentially making life harder for the UK post-referendum with this kind of talk and should, perhaps, wind his neck in a little now?
king arthur said:
steveatesh said:
Don't know if this has been posted but Adam Smith with a EEA/EfTA pathway, a Flexcit derivative is how Dr North calls it.
Interestingly Ken Clarke also called for this route today in the Commons.... its on the table and running by the sound of things:
http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution
Thanks for posting that, it's a very good read. I'm rather more enthusiastic about the "Norway" option having read it.Interestingly Ken Clarke also called for this route today in the Commons.... its on the table and running by the sound of things:
http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution
Funk said:
Anyone else think that winding up other MEPs isn't really the best start to figuring this stuff out?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ule97jkRA
I wonder whether Farage is potentially making life harder for the UK post-referendum with this kind of talk and should, perhaps, wind his neck in a little now?
I don't like Farage very much (not at all to be honest) but from a one man band he has changed the course of history. He has done that without being part of the UK party system or by any conventional means. In other words, not just the hard way, but the very, very hard way.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ule97jkRA
I wonder whether Farage is potentially making life harder for the UK post-referendum with this kind of talk and should, perhaps, wind his neck in a little now?
On that basis, just this once, I think it is fair to allow him his "moment".
QuantumTokoloshi said:
I agree with most of that, there are voices in the EU which agree with this but not the top people. I think if this is what Cameron came back with when he went for reform then there wouldn't have been a referendum but the EU top brass were too stubborn to change or even acknowledge the need.confused_buyer said:
Funk said:
Anyone else think that winding up other MEPs isn't really the best start to figuring this stuff out?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ule97jkRA
I wonder whether Farage is potentially making life harder for the UK post-referendum with this kind of talk and should, perhaps, wind his neck in a little now?
I don't like Farage very much (not at all to be honest) but from a one man band he has changed the course of history. He has done that without being part of the UK party system or by any conventional means. In other words, not just the hard way, but the very, very hard way.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40ule97jkRA
I wonder whether Farage is potentially making life harder for the UK post-referendum with this kind of talk and should, perhaps, wind his neck in a little now?
On that basis, just this once, I think it is fair to allow him his "moment".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff