if that happens then rest assured they will call for an early general election which they will lose. Then they will have the opportunity to pin the blame on may, cameron and labour for not delivering the brexit they wanted
I am missing something here. If EEA membership is an objective than Brexit is a monumental waste of time and money. None of the Brexit arguments are applicable.
You’re not missing anything, no, only that the cherry picked, have cake and eat it deal delivered on a gold platter by a unicorn failed to materialise. So, assuming it is not politically viable to call off the whole farce, the Lords have realised that the alternative of EEA membership would limit the damage and at least avoid the economic disaster of crashing out with no deal.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your point but the EEA membership doesn't limit damage that's literally cancelling Brexit. Brexit means leaving the EEA, that's where I have been the most confused, people seem to not understand which institutions they are talking about. When brexit is about making your own economic rules or the four freedoms, you are targeting the EEA.
The point is that when people voted for Brexit, they did not have a clue what it meant - two years later they still haven't a clue. When people tried to explain, they wouldn't listen. Brexit is an enormous waste of time and money. You could ask a hundred Brexiters what Brexit means and you'd get a hundred different answers.
But these answers should all include the EEA. It's the most fundamental aspect, it doesn't matter if you are pro brexit for economic or immigration reasons, the EEA is the area of the four freedoms and it's where the EU and EFTA rules are strictly applied. The EEA encompass all the brexit arguments, it's the one thing you can't stay in if you are negotiating for Brexit.
Doesn't include fisheries and isn't subject to the ECJ either, right?
It respects the referendum result in that the UK would not remain a member of the European Union. Since there are 101 different interpretations on what the “no” reponse to the referendum question actually meant, then choosing the most formalistic, least harmful interpretation seems to be the more pragmatic approach. A lot of people won’t like it but, in a country split down the middle, there is no magic solution that will reconcile the two camps.
Not exactly. The EEA is divided between EFTA and EU members, EFTA members aren't subjected to agricultural and fishery laws but they also don't have a direct access to the single market, customs are needed to protect both sides. EFTA members are also subjected to the EFTA court which means that the same philosophical problem exists.
That's where I'm confused, why would you leave the EU. What was the reasoning behind it?
The reasoning for many was “too many immigrants”.
I agree with you completely but remember when the Leave campaigners were campaigning, Farage and Johnson et al were all for staying in the single market, Johnson even said people have to be insane to leave it. The reason is that they didn't know what they were campaigning for and if they didn't know, how can the general public understand it.
Can't make it up
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I always get pissed off to feck when audience members come out with this. Ignores the complexities underlying the issue and the actual obstacles blocking it from happening smoothly. Just a sort of whimsical, populist statement that has no backing in factual reality.
''"I've met the man in the street and he's a cnut.".
Stopped watching Question Time over a decade ago for that exact reason.
I keep coming back to this but I think that's a result of very little mainstream political opposition to Brexit. A PM that wants to pretend the 'cake and eating it' route is achievable and a leader of the opposition who seems to want to talk about anything else. Most people probably are under the impression that we can have our cake and eat it as the major political voices at the top of the two major parties either endorse that policy or provide absolutely no opposition to it.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That argument has been taken apart at least 5 separate times in this thread alone.
So liars cheat too... Are any criminal charges likely?
What argument? That millions of people who voted to remain don’t really know anything about the EU?
The argument whether voting leave out of ignorance is in the same ballpark of stupidity as voting remain out of ignorance. (It isn't).
yes - the person who was responsible for signing the submissions made to the electoral commission has been refered to the met for investigation as it is a criminal offence to either knowingly or recklessly submit false information.
Good job I didn’t argue that then isn’t it (because it’s not possible to know)
who is in which half?
Why won’t EFTA work?
Custom control/controlled borders, EFTA has them.
Article on it here. They just don't know what to do. They'll never come up with a sensible answer, mainly because there is no answer other than leave totally
As per JPRouve said, UK was a member between 1960 and 1973, the time when they were desperately trying to join the EEC and left it when they did.
Sorry, I may have misunderstood/misinterpreted your original post:
When asked how he would go about it, he said he did not have a clue. I am tired of this country.
