Richmond Park by-election.

[s2art]

AW111 said:

s2art said:

Neither Norway or Switzerland are members of the single market.

Norway is a signatory to the EEA, which makes it part of the single market.
http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement

efta website said:

The Agreement on the European Economic Area, which entered into force on 1 January 1994, brings together the EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States — Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway — in a single market, referred to as the "Internal Market".The EEA Agreement also states that when a country becomes a member of the European Union, it shall also apply to become party to the EEA Agreement (Article 128), thus leading to an enlargement of the EEA.

Switzerland is not a signatory to the EEA, but is part of the "internal market" via bilateral agreements.

IFAIU Neither get a vote on the Single Market, not being full members. I think this is what the Norwegian MP referred to as fax democracy. They both have some influence, but not at the final say.

[gruffalo]

I. Thought we wanted access to the single market, like Canada has.

We do not need to be a member.

[don'tbesilly]

AW111 said:

don'tbesilly said:

AW111 said:

And you will continue refusing to answer a simple yes/no question, because it the truth would prove your earlier blanket assertion wrong.

Can we broker a deal - you answer RHY's question, and ///ajd answers BC's?

How would it prove it wrong?

don'tbesilly said:

<snip>
The UK's membership of the EU is the same as being a member of the single market, the two are intrinsically linked, you can't have one without the other.

Now maybe you think the UK can't be in the single market and not in the EU, but since Norway and Switzerland are, your assertion in bold is incorrect.

The UK may not wish to make the compromises the EU would demand in exchange, but that's a different question.

No I'm not incorrect.

The UK's agreement with the EU links intrinsically membership of the EU with membership of the single market, you can not have one without the other, if you disagree read 'The Rights and Obligations of European Membership'.

To change the terms would require at least a treaty change, or negotiations with the EU and agreement from 27 other member countries that the UK could change the rights and obligations.

You have hit the nail on the head in your last sentence, however it is not a different question to what the referendum was about, the UK voted to leave the EU, so ergo the single market.

The arrangements both Norway and Switzerland have with the EU are irrelevant to the UK's arrangement, and are not consistent with what the UK voted for, specifically not FM, among other obligations.

[///ajd]

don'tbesilly said:

AW111 said:

don'tbesilly said:

It's in no way relevant to the UK's vote to leave the EU.
It's in no way relevant to the UK's membership of the EU.

You can carry on asking the question all day, every day, it will continue to be an irrelevance.

Crack on

And you will continue refusing to answer a simple yes/no question, because it the truth would prove your earlier blanket assertion wrong.

Can we broker a deal - you answer RHY's question, and ///ajd answers BC's?

How would it prove it wrong?

You said you can't be in the Single Market but not also in the EU.

Presumably in your post fact world, Norway is a figment of everyone else's imagination.

[s2art]

///ajd said:

don'tbesilly said:

AW111 said:

don'tbesilly said:

It's in no way relevant to the UK's vote to leave the EU.
It's in no way relevant to the UK's membership of the EU.

You can carry on asking the question all day, every day, it will continue to be an irrelevance.

Crack on

And you will continue refusing to answer a simple yes/no question, because it the truth would prove your earlier blanket assertion wrong.

Can we broker a deal - you answer RHY's question, and ///ajd answers BC's?

How would it prove it wrong?

You said you can't be in the Single Market but not also in the EU.

Presumably in your post fact world, Norway is a figment of everyone else's imagination.

Norway is not a full member of the SM. It cannot vote on SM issues.

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

don'tbesilly said:

AW111 said:

don'tbesilly said:

It's in no way relevant to the UK's vote to leave the EU.
It's in no way relevant to the UK's membership of the EU.

You can carry on asking the question all day, every day, it will continue to be an irrelevance.

Crack on

And you will continue refusing to answer a simple yes/no question, because it the truth would prove your earlier blanket assertion wrong.

Can we broker a deal - you answer RHY's question, and ///ajd answers BC's?

How would it prove it wrong?

You said you can't be in the Single Market but not also in the EU.

Presumably in your post fact world, Norway is a figment of everyone else's imagination.

[///ajd]

s2art said:

///ajd said:

don'tbesilly said:

AW111 said:

don'tbesilly said:

It's in no way relevant to the UK's vote to leave the EU.
It's in no way relevant to the UK's membership of the EU.

You can carry on asking the question all day, every day, it will continue to be an irrelevance.

Crack on

And you will continue refusing to answer a simple yes/no question, because it the truth would prove your earlier blanket assertion wrong.

Can we broker a deal - you answer RHY's question, and ///ajd answers BC's?

How would it prove it wrong?

You said you can't be in the Single Market but not also in the EU.

Presumably in your post fact world, Norway is a figment of everyone else's imagination.

Norway is not a full member of the SM. It cannot vote on SM issues.

But I do recall brexiteers stating how much Norway can influence SM issues....

Question is - if you say Norway is not in the Single Market, would it be OK then for our future trading status to be like Norways then? If they are out of the SM, we can go for that - would that be acceptable?


I wonder if the real referendum question should have been:

"Do you think the UK should leave the EU if we can't get the EU to allow us to have control of EU immigration?"

Then take that mandate to Brussels. Job done.

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

s2art said:

///ajd said:

don'tbesilly said:

AW111 said:

don'tbesilly said:

It's in no way relevant to the UK's vote to leave the EU.
It's in no way relevant to the UK's membership of the EU.

You can carry on asking the question all day, every day, it will continue to be an irrelevance.

Crack on

And you will continue refusing to answer a simple yes/no question, because it the truth would prove your earlier blanket assertion wrong.

Can we broker a deal - you answer RHY's question, and ///ajd answers BC's?

How would it prove it wrong?

You said you can't be in the Single Market but not also in the EU.

Presumably in your post fact world, Norway is a figment of everyone else's imagination.

Norway is not a full member of the SM. It cannot vote on SM issues.

But I do recall brexiteers stating how much Norway can influence SM issues....

Question is - if you say Norway is not in the Single Market, would it be OK then for our future trading status to be like Norways then? If they are out of the SM, we can go for that - would that be acceptable?


I wonder if the real referendum question should have been:

"Do you think the UK should leave the EU if we can't get the EU to allow us to have control of EU immigration?"

Then take that mandate to Brussels. Job done.

The UK is a member of the single market by dint of EU Membership.
When the UK leaves the EU one disappears with the other,both were intrinsically linked, it's inarguable, it's written in the UK's 'Rights and Obligations of EU membership', read it.

Norway is an irrelevance in context to the UK's vote to leave.

What the question should have been / could have been/what you wished it was is also an irrelevance.

The question was:

[///ajd]

don'tbesilly said:

The UK is a member of the single market by dint of EU Membership.
When the UK leaves the EU one disappears with the other,both were intrinsically linked, it's inarguable, it's written in the UK's 'Rights and Obligations of EU membership', read it.

Norway is an irrelevance in context to the UK's vote to leave.

But when we leave we can chose whatever trade access we want from the EU.

We will be fully 110% sovereign and can make our own decisions.

We can be Norway, Swiss, Albania, Russia. Whoever we want! We're free!

Why are you limiting our options?

What is so special about leaving the SM?

[s2art]

///ajd said:

What is so special about leaving the SM?

Ask Canada if they prefer a FTA or membership of the SM with FMoP.

[Murph7355]

///ajd said:

...
Question is - if you say Norway is not in the Single Market, would it be OK then for our future trading status to be like Norways then? If they are out of the SM, we can go for that - would that be acceptable?
...

No.

Norway has to accept freedom of movement for starters. Which is a non-starter.

I believe they also contribute quite heavily.

As has been noted, Norway's position vis a vis the EU is significantly different to ours (they are a heavy net exporter and utterly reliant on the EU for its export market. And I do mean utterly. They are also a powerful no30 on the GDP hit parade, some 14% of ours and 25 places lower ranked - incidentally we are their biggest export market. Their population has 5m eager purchasers of EU tat versus 65m here).

We would be stupid and selling ourselves short to end up with the same deal that they have. Though this appears to be all people on your side of the Remain camp believe we can get...

///ajd said:

...
I wonder if the real referendum question should have been:

"Do you think the UK should leave the EU if we can't get the EU to allow us to have control of EU immigration?"

Then take that mandate to Brussels. Job done.

Freedom of movement, full sovereignty, a more "balanced" contribution regime (let's have back what Blair gave up for starters) etc.

Do you not think CMD went to Brussels pretty much as you are noting? The Neville Chamberlain-esque piece of paper he came back with suggested to me that he knew full well what the hot topics were going to be in the referendum. He knew full well what the Leave side of the vote would come at him with and as much as I think he has a touch of the weak spine, I'm pretty sure he went to Brussels with it. He got kicked in the balls, and the majority of people in this country could see that and voted accordingly, showing the EU the contempt their offer deserved.

The way you approach this sort of thing I cannot see that you have ever been involved in a negotiation of any scale. Though that may be clouded by you still being pretty bitter at the outcome of the vote...

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

don'tbesilly said:

The UK is a member of the single market by dint of EU Membership.
When the UK leaves the EU one disappears with the other,both were intrinsically linked, it's inarguable, it's written in the UK's 'Rights and Obligations of EU membership', read it.

Norway is an irrelevance in context to the UK's vote to leave.

But when we leave we can chose whatever trade access we want from the EU.

We will be fully 110% sovereign and can make our own decisions.

We can be Norway, Swiss, Albania, Russia. Whoever we want! We're free!

Why are you limiting our options?

What is so special about leaving the SM?

110%

.....................

[///ajd]

Murph7355 said:

///ajd said:

...
Question is - if you say Norway is not in the Single Market, would it be OK then for our future trading status to be like Norways then? If they are out of the SM, we can go for that - would that be acceptable?
...

No.

Norway has to accept freedom of movement for starters. Which is a non-starter.

I believe they also contribute quite heavily.

As has been noted, Norway's position vis a vis the EU is significantly different to ours (they are a heavy net exporter and utterly reliant on the EU for its export market. And I do mean utterly. They are also a powerful no30 on the GDP hit parade, some 14% of ours and 25 places lower ranked - incidentally we are their biggest export market. Their population has 5m eager purchasers of EU tat versus 65m here).

We would be stupid and selling ourselves short to end up with the same deal that they have. Though this appears to be all people on your side of the Remain camp believe we can get...

///ajd said:

...
I wonder if the real referendum question should have been:

"Do you think the UK should leave the EU if we can't get the EU to allow us to have control of EU immigration?"

Then take that mandate to Brussels. Job done.

Freedom of movement, full sovereignty, a more "balanced" contribution regime (let's have back what Blair gave up for starters) etc.

Do you not think CMD went to Brussels pretty much as you are noting? The Neville Chamberlain-esque piece of paper he came back with suggested to me that he knew full well what the hot topics were going to be in the referendum. He knew full well what the Leave side of the vote would come at him with and as much as I think he has a touch of the weak spine, I'm pretty sure he went to Brussels with it. He got kicked in the balls, and the majority of people in this country could see that and voted accordingly, showing the EU the contempt their offer deserved.

The way you approach this sort of thing I cannot see that you have ever been involved in a negotiation of any scale. Though that may be clouded by you still being pretty bitter at the outcome of the vote...

The EU didn't believe the UK were serious or would be daft enough to leave the EU.

Cameron didn't think we'd be daft enough to leave and didn't take it seriously enough - until it was too late.

Its fair to say the referendum was a surprise result, the EU didn't expect it either.

I know negotiations well enough to see one where our hand is pretty limited. The bullst and bravado of Fox and co won't get them far - only those who have no idea about negotiations whatsoever think it will. They are the only ones Fox and co are trying to convince they are "really trying" of course.

[Sway]

RYH64E said:

You know that that isn't true, the vote was a simple Leave/Remain, anything subsequent to the vote is at the discretion of the Government.

Snipped for brevity, but that statement is the primary reason I voted Leave.

Whatever happens now the vote is done, I'm happy that the people responsible for the result are the UK Government and the population of the UK.

Your statement, applied in the event of a win for Remain, would not have ensured the same thing. The one answer to every question in the last 40 years from some was 'more EU is the only way'.

AJD seems to have forgotten his similar assertions prior to the vote being shown in these fora to be demonstrably untrue. Remain voters were perhaps more likely to be divided in the specific result - 'reform from within' was the cry from many (with far fewer ever suggesting what that should look like). 'Retain the Status Quo' was shouted by others (ignoring the fact that there has never been a recognisable period with no change). Finally we had the much quieter group (of which at least one member is posting on this thread) who wanted 'Full European Federalisation'...

Of course, when pointed out, people from the first two camps referred immediately to the pledge for a referendum in the event of greater handover of powers. Which is fine, until parliament exerts it's ability to unbind itself from previous positions, an 'emergency' condition arises as they seem to quite regularly, etc. What is clear, beyond any of this, is that fundamental aspects of our ability to thrive in the way that suits us best would be outside the control of the UK government or it's electorate. Which I could not accept.

[don'tbesilly]

///ajd said:

Murph7355 said:

///ajd said:

...
Question is - if you say Norway is not in the Single Market, would it be OK then for our future trading status to be like Norways then? If they are out of the SM, we can go for that - would that be acceptable?
...

No.

Norway has to accept freedom of movement for starters. Which is a non-starter.

I believe they also contribute quite heavily.

As has been noted, Norway's position vis a vis the EU is significantly different to ours (they are a heavy net exporter and utterly reliant on the EU for its export market. And I do mean utterly. They are also a powerful no30 on the GDP hit parade, some 14% of ours and 25 places lower ranked - incidentally we are their biggest export market. Their population has 5m eager purchasers of EU tat versus 65m here).

We would be stupid and selling ourselves short to end up with the same deal that they have. Though this appears to be all people on your side of the Remain camp believe we can get...

///ajd said:

...
I wonder if the real referendum question should have been:

"Do you think the UK should leave the EU if we can't get the EU to allow us to have control of EU immigration?"

Then take that mandate to Brussels. Job done.

Freedom of movement, full sovereignty, a more "balanced" contribution regime (let's have back what Blair gave up for starters) etc.

Do you not think CMD went to Brussels pretty much as you are noting? The Neville Chamberlain-esque piece of paper he came back with suggested to me that he knew full well what the hot topics were going to be in the referendum. He knew full well what the Leave side of the vote would come at him with and as much as I think he has a touch of the weak spine, I'm pretty sure he went to Brussels with it. He got kicked in the balls, and the majority of people in this country could see that and voted accordingly, showing the EU the contempt their offer deserved.

The way you approach this sort of thing I cannot see that you have ever been involved in a negotiation of any scale. Though that may be clouded by you still being pretty bitter at the outcome of the vote...

The EU didn't believe the UK were serious or would be daft enough to leave the EU.

Cameron didn't think we'd be daft enough to leave and didn't take it seriously enough - until it was too late.

Its fair to say the referendum was a surprise result, the EU didn't expect it either.

I know negotiations well enough to see one where our hand is pretty limited. The bullst and bravado of Fox and co won't get them far - only those who have no idea about negotiations whatsoever think it will. They are the only ones Fox and co are trying to convince they are "really trying" of course.

and you're still a

Roll on April or May

[Murph7355]

///ajd said:

The EU didn't believe the UK were serious or would be daft enough to leave the EU.

Cameron didn't think we'd be daft enough to leave and didn't take it seriously enough - until it was too late.

Its fair to say the referendum was a surprise result, the EU didn't expect it either.

I know negotiations well enough to see one where our hand is pretty limited. The bullst and bravado of Fox and co won't get them far - only those who have no idea about negotiations whatsoever think it will. They are the only ones Fox and co are trying to convince they are "really trying" of course.

Our hand is far from limited. The softening of stance from the harsher EU quarters before the game's even afoot indicates that to me. If I were on the negotiating team I'd be happy about that. Though you and I will never agree on that front. The final deal will tell one way or the other (though personally I'm quite happy to walk from this one and go back to WTO rules if the EU aren't prepared to budge. I'd back that every day of the week as I am utterly convinced the EU will not survive in its current guise).

As for the EU and Cameron, political arrogance will be the end of them all. They, as well as you, are quite evidently not in touch with the electorate/zeitgeist. Keep dismissing those with a counter opinion to your own at your peril. Keep telling yourself you're better than those who have a contrary opinion if you must, but you're just going to end up bitter and twisted

(btw, do you live/work/have key connections in France?).

[B'stard Child]

///ajd said:

Murph7355 said:

///ajd said:

...
Question is - if you say Norway is not in the Single Market, would it be OK then for our future trading status to be like Norways then? If they are out of the SM, we can go for that - would that be acceptable?
...

No.

Norway has to accept freedom of movement for starters. Which is a non-starter.

I believe they also contribute quite heavily.

As has been noted, Norway's position vis a vis the EU is significantly different to ours (they are a heavy net exporter and utterly reliant on the EU for its export market. And I do mean utterly. They are also a powerful no30 on the GDP hit parade, some 14% of ours and 25 places lower ranked - incidentally we are their biggest export market. Their population has 5m eager purchasers of EU tat versus 65m here).

We would be stupid and selling ourselves short to end up with the same deal that they have. Though this appears to be all people on your side of the Remain camp believe we can get...

///ajd said:

...
I wonder if the real referendum question should have been:

"Do you think the UK should leave the EU if we can't get the EU to allow us to have control of EU immigration?"

Then take that mandate to Brussels. Job done.

Freedom of movement, full sovereignty, a more "balanced" contribution regime (let's have back what Blair gave up for starters) etc.

Do you not think CMD went to Brussels pretty much as you are noting? The Neville Chamberlain-esque piece of paper he came back with suggested to me that he knew full well what the hot topics were going to be in the referendum. He knew full well what the Leave side of the vote would come at him with and as much as I think he has a touch of the weak spine, I'm pretty sure he went to Brussels with it. He got kicked in the balls, and the majority of people in this country could see that and voted accordingly, showing the EU the contempt their offer deserved.

The way you approach this sort of thing I cannot see that you have ever been involved in a negotiation of any scale. Though that may be clouded by you still being pretty bitter at the outcome of the vote...

The EU didn't believe the UK were serious or would be daft enough to leave the EU.

Cameron didn't think we'd be daft enough to leave and didn't take it seriously enough - until it was too late.

Its fair to say the referendum was a surprise result, the EU didn't expect it either.

Wonderful - it was a surprise for everyone

///ajd said:

I know negotiations well enough to see one where our hand is pretty limited. The bullst and bravado of Fox and co won't get them far - only those who have no idea about negotiations whatsoever think it will. They are the only ones Fox and co are trying to convince they are "really trying" of course.

I really don't think the negotiations matter - I'm OK with them being conducted but I think compromises with be thin - I only really want one thing agreed - then we can forget about the pretence of trying to get a good deal for the UK that works with the EU and just leave.

[AW111]

don'tbesilly said:

No I'm not incorrect.

The UK's agreement with the EU links intrinsically membership of the EU with membership of the single market, you can not have one without the other, if you disagree read 'The Rights and Obligations of European Membership'.

To change the terms would require at least a treaty change, or negotiations with the EU and agreement from 27 other member countries that the UK could change the rights and obligations.

You have hit the nail on the head in your last sentence, however it is not a different question to what the referendum was about, the UK voted to leave the EU, so ergo the single market.

The arrangements both Norway and Switzerland have with the EU are irrelevant to the UK's arrangement, and are not consistent with what the UK voted for, specifically not FM, among other obligations.

I agree that you can't be a member of the EU without being part of the single market : that may well be spelled out in 'The Rights and Obligations of European Membership' as you state, and it is stated on the EFTA site I posted earlier.

However, that does not say you can't be part of the single market without EU membership.

This has nothing to do with the UK's current arrangement, or what people voted for in the referendum. You made a bold (literally) statement of fact unequivocally stating that you can't be in the single market without being a member of the EU, and the EFTA names three nations that are.

You clearly disagree, so I'll leave it at that.

[s2art]

AW111 said:

This has nothing to do with the UK's current arrangement, or what people voted for in the referendum. You made a bold (literally) statement of fact unequivocally stating that you can't be in the single market without being a member of the EU, and the EFTA names three nations that are.

Except they are not full members. They do not have the voting rights of full members.

[///ajd]

s2art said:

AW111 said:

This has nothing to do with the UK's current arrangement, or what people voted for in the referendum. You made a bold (literally) statement of fact unequivocally stating that you can't be in the single market without being a member of the EU, and the EFTA names three nations that are.

Except they are not full members. They do not have the voting rights of full members.

I think everyone knows that. But its still an option post brexit for the UK.