Brexit Begins

Daniel Hannan:

Quote:

---

Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market.

---

Owen Paterson:

Quote:

---

Only a madman would actually leave the Market.

---

Scrotal Pimple:

Quote:

---

Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing.

---

Matthew Elliot:

Quote:

---

The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people

---

Arron Banks:

Quote:

---

Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK.

---

Official campaign:

Quote:

---

"There is a free trade zone stretching all the way from Iceland to the Russian border. We will still be part of it after we Vote Leave."

---

Minister of Bullshit, immediately after the referendum:

Quote:

---

there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market.

---

There are no rational interpretations of these statements--that pass the "oh come ON"-test--that amount to anything less than explicit or implicit endorsements of outcomes that involve meaningful access to the Single Market comparable to eg. the EFTA model--or, in Johnson's case, at least an FTA.

Vote Leave staffer:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-single-market

Quote:

---

But what is more concerning is the number of people who believe in an imaginary mandate to leave the single market, or rather to withdraw from the EEA Agreement. No such mandate exists. Vote Leave did not ever present to the electorate a plan for Brexit, and did not advocate leaving the single market. Don't believe me? Our website is still online at voteleavetakecontrol.org. Take a look at our campaign messages and our claims. We argue for things which are utterly achievable in the EEA and make no mention at all of leaving the single market.

---

Indeed, even you spent a number of posts on this Norwegian fantasy--and, a year ago, you said:

Quote:

---

I don't think the government could whip its own MPs into agreeing a Norway style agreement (since that still includes unlimited free movement) which means relying upon opposition MPs which may pass amendments to demand other things too which is then a very risky strategy. OTOH if the negotiations end as a forced choice between a Norway style agreement and no agreement at all then there would be a massive forced majority to agree to the Norway agreement rather than let the clock run out.

---

http://theworldforgotten.com/showthr...l=1#post181357

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Someone's lying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...rope--and-alw/

Also, from the 'geopolitical impact' thread:

---

Please prepare yourself for some bullshit sophistry that doesn't pass the "oh come ON"-test.

I'm always prepared for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Bollocks. You are either lying or have been misled as that did not happen during the referendum campaign.

---

I'm honestly speechless that you actually think this.

Plenty of evidence just posted, but I'll just leave this here as well:

Twitter Link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

So your "simple" solutions are to undermine democracy, or to undermine democracy? Marvellous.

How about something that respects democracy? An alien concept I'm sure given the history the EU has with Ireland.

---

The EU is more democratic than the UK, btw.

Twitter Link

Basically a long-winded way of saying "fuck you" to two of RB's heroes. Rough.

In other "hostile environment" news:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...p-after-attack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Someone's lying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

---

Yes the authors of that video who took clips out of context or from years ago to mean the opposite of what the author was saying. That video has been completely debunked by the impartial BBC's Andrew Neil who tore it apart.


Why would you use such a disreputable and thoroughly debunked source?

Then you put in quotes from myself and Boris including the term "access to the Single Market". I want access to the Single Market. Access and Membership are two totally different things, a Free Trade Agreement would give us access to the Single Market while not being members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Daniel Hannan:
Owen Paterson:
Scrotal Pimple:
Matthew Elliot:
Arron Banks:
Official campaign:

---

I see no dates on your quotations, or full paragraphs, or sources to the original clip. Why so dishonest? Is it because you lack any original sources and have instead been duped by the disreputable and dishonest Open Europe spin that was totally debunked over a year ago? See my video, not by a Leaver but by a BBC journalist tearing that pack of lies apart.

Quote:

---

Minister of Bullshit, immediately after the referendum:

---

Indeed there will be once a free trade agreement is signed. Hence the word access rather than the word membership.

Quote:

---

There are no rational interpretations of these statements--that pass the "oh come ON"-test--that amount to anything less than explicit or implicit endorsements of outcomes that involve meaningful access to the Single Market comparable to eg. the EFTA model--or, in Johnson's case, at least an FTA.

---

Actually they all are met by an FTA. Indeed some of them are even met by WTO terms. EG from memory the "only a madman" quote when completed refers to the madman leaving the market not being WTO terms or other, but being a North Korea style leaving the market that only a madman would do.

Quote:

---

Indeed, even you spent a number of posts on this Norwegian fantasy--and, a year ago, you said:
http://theworldforgotten.com/showthr...l=1#post181357

---

How do you get from "I don't think the government could whip its own MPs into agreeing a Norway style agreement (since that still includes unlimited free movement)" to it being a "Norwegian fantasy"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gogobongopop

I'm honestly speechless that you actually think this.

Plenty of evidence just posted, but I'll just leave this here as well:

Twitter Link

---

"A few weeks before the referendum" of June 23rd was February? That's a new fangled calendar you've got there. A few months maybe and notably before the failure of Cameron's negotiations to get meaningful reform led to Boris and others deciding that leaving was reluctantly the best option. It certainly was not during the referendum campaign which had not begun yet in February. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gogobongopop

The EU is more democratic than the UK, btw.

---

Bullshit.

When did the government of the EU last change due to an election and what were the major changes debated at the election and how did they change?

Could not be clearer.

Yes, and what you were talking about with Minx was being in the EEA like Norway or Switzerland, i.e. access to the single market. Now that's not going to happen because it's impossible to square Brexiters opposition to freedom of movement with being part of the EEA, and you're trying to say no one ever said we were going to be in the EEA (I think?), even though they did, and now you've been called out on that you're trying to claim what you actually meant was that no one ever said we were going to be fully paid up members of the single market but were still going to retain access to said single market, presumably by magic, thus rendering all the points you were trying to make to Minx about, e.g. democratic mandates that come from the referendum completely moot, but since that's now on the previous page you presumably think we've completely forgotten about that.

Tell me, do you have any actual coherent position on this at all, or are you simply saying the first thing that comes into your head that makes Brexit seem like a good idea in the context or whatever is currently being discussed?

A free trade agreement would not necessarily and in fact is not likely to entail access to the single market to the same degree as members of the EU or the EEA have, because as far as the EU is concerned if you want access to the single market you have to be part of FoM. If you think we're going to be able to somehow loophole around that one, or alternatively, make the hardcore Brexiteers look the other way while we sign up for something that preserves freedom of movement then I would invite you to join the rest of us in the real world if you feel up to it.

We may get some limited access, but it's going to be nothing like what we currently enjoy.

Norway don't have access to the Single Market, they are members of the Single Market.

Absolutely nobody from the Leave side said during the referendum that we were going to be in the EEA so why say "even though they did"? If they did say that during the referendum then please provide an original source showing them saying that. Membership of the Single Market (the Norway option) was ruled out by all sides before the vote.

How else do they expect to get tariff free access to the single market? Either membership, or de facto membership, like Switzerland.

No, they expect a Free Trade Agreement.

If TTIP had gone through then would the USA have been a member of the Single Market? Or would they have had access to it?

The word I would use would depend on the specifics of the TTIP and how far it went, and I am not familiar enough with it to say which word is more appropriate and I find the cavilling over semantics of 'member' vs 'access' more or less irrelevant. Incidentally, the TTIP *didn't* go through, and it took about five years to not go through, so I guess the idea of a 2 year deadline for a deal that doesn't suck is pretty optimistic. The idea that we will be given tariff free access without also giving ground on free movement, exactly what the hardliners May is beholden to don't want and are unlikely to let her get away with, is even more optimistic.

Incidentally, the quote Minx gave?

Quote:

---

"There is a free trade zone stretching all the way from Iceland to the Russian border. We will still be part of it after we Vote Leave."

---

Still on the Vote Leave website.

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

It's hard to find and then cite because it's in the slideshow at the bottom is in an image and therefore and doesn't show up on searches, but it's there. You can go ahead and split hairs over whether being 'part of' something implies access more than membership or whether the free trade zone they don't name is in fact the EEA or perhaps some notional idea of free trade that Europe as a whole believes in, but you, I and everyone else here knows exactly what impression that sentence is designed to give.

Also, that Daniel Hannan quote, which to be fair was taken out of context? In that interview, he talks about the Switzerland model.

Oh, here we go, found the same claim repeated this time in actual text:

Quote:

---

Some claim we will not get a trade deal but there is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it. The idea that Britain will be the only country in Europe not to be part of this zone is silly.

---

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_trade.html

So, there we go. Silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Nah, we gave the Scots a choice in determining their future and they chose to remain within the UK and everything that means. We respected the Scots decision. Unlike the Catalans who are being denied a voice or the Irish who have twice been told they voted wrong by the EU and made to come back with the right answer.

---

Please. Your own politicians said that they wouldn't respect the decision if the Scots voted out. You're just lucky that they didn't so you didn't have to demonstrate the absolute lack of fucks you give about the Scots once again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

No, they expect a Free Trade Agreement.

If TTIP had gone through then would the USA have been a member of the Single Market? Or would they have had access to it?

---

Which took exactly how many YEARS for Canada?

We have a 44 year head start on that.

Twitter Link
Nein.
Non.
No.

Yeah everything would have been so rosy and simple if we'd remained ... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

We have a 44 year head start on that.

---

So, you're saying we already have a trade deal with the EU, we just don't know it yet?

Of course we have a trade deal currently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Twitter Link
Nein.
Non.
No.

Yeah everything would have been so rosy and simple if we'd remained ... :rolleyes:

---

I know, right?! And get this - TURKEY are going to join the EU soon as well!

No their membership talks were suspended though after the referendum vote. At the time of the referendum vote yes they were and our government was actively spending millions of pounds trying to make sure that happened sooner rather than later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Of course we have a trade deal currently.

---

Yeah, but here's the thing which we tried to get into your thick head repeatedly:

After the zero hour, any and ALL trade agreements need to start from scratch. No copy and paste, no rubberstamping agreements.

Here's the thing that you need to get through your thick skull: you're categorically wrong, nobody ever starts from scratch every time there's a new deal to be made.

Life is about evolution not revolution. Prior deals form the basis for future ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Here's the thing that you need to get through your thick skull: you're categorically wrong, nobody ever starts from scratch every time there's a new deal to be made.

Life is about evolution not revolution. Prior deals form the basis for future ones.

---

Not this one, dude. If it was that easy CETA wouldn't have taken years.

And CETA was with a country we like. If you idiots bungle Ireland then you can kiss any and all agreements goodbye for the foreseeable future.

Canada didn't start from the same place as the UK does, they had their own systems and it had to be hammered out where there would be areas of regulatory equivalence how that would be achieved. Whose system would get compromised.

Here that is relatively straightforward. Where there needs to be regulatory equivalence, we already have it. There's no disagreement as the standard is already set, we will simply have to agree to maintain equivalence with the regulations that we already have! Then the areas where regulator equivalence is not required is the areas where we will be able to diverge going forwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Of course we have a trade deal currently.

---

Did you vote to leave that one?

So, you'll agree to free movement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Did you vote to leave that one?

---

Yes and to seek an amended new one.

You know like how when the Irish rejected the EU Constitution and so on and so forth since everybody is so keen on the Irish right now.