Finally, we're discussing trade!

[meridian]

Finally, we're discussing trade!

It really wasn't. A lot of things were mooted on both sides, but all the leading figures in Vote Leave were emphatic about leaving the Single Market (i.e. the EEA in legalese). To say anything different is just a corruption of what happened during the campaign. It's your 350m per week.

I beg to differ on this point. I can dig them out later if you like (on my phone at the moment) but there are multiple clips on the web of leading Leavers saying pre-referendum that nobody was talking about leaving the SM.

There are a couple of examples here from Daniel Hannon and Boris Johnson, there are plenty of others. This is most certainly not "emphatic" about leaving the SM:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...igns-revisited

Edit: more here:

http://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/...b09025ba310fce

[meridian]

Let's face it, neither of us has a fecking clue what's going to happen.

But I suspect a majority of leavers and remainers can unite on this: that the EEA makes no sense at all. Basically, you can have all the rules and regulations of the EU, in substance, and one of:

1. A Say.
2. No say.

"Taking back control"

Obviously, remaining makes far more sense than EEA. Can you imagine Corbyn plus EEA? Talk about the worst of every possible world.

Of the deal options, I think it's CETA or bust. Brexit was never about preserving GDP in the short-run (the view parroted by continuity remain, i.e. "no one voted to become poorer". Yes, they bloody did).

Barnier thinks it's either CETA or the UK has to give up one or more "red lines", but CETA is not compatible with NI. Something has to give way (in order of least likely probability, the DUP, the EU, the U.K.)

[darmstadt]

[Bean]

[tomtomagain]

Because he's exactly the sort of person who thinks that to do a project well you put together a 2 year gant chart and assume nothing is going to change and so plow on regardless to the horrible train crash of an end.

I think the idea that people believe the government has done no planning completely laughable.

It's not like TM et al sat down and said "Right, now we've done the first bit, lets have a think about the next phase. Borris, have you got any ideas?".

Its a simple Government PR-piece designed to get into the news showing HMG are making progress having sealed the first stage deal. Get a few quotes on the News at 10 along with a couple of pictures of the PM looking states-womanly.

In reality, it's pretty clear what the UK wants. A free-trade agreement to enable with frictionless trade with the EU. To have its cake and eat it.

[jamesbrown]

I beg to differ on this point. I can dig them out later if you like (on my phone at the moment) but there are multiple clips on the web of leading Leavers saying pre-referendum that nobody was talking about leaving the SM.

There are a couple of examples here from Daniel Hannon and Boris Johnson, there are plenty of others. This is most certainly not "emphatic" about leaving the SM:

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...igns-revisited

Edit: more here:

Open Britain Exposes All The Times Brexiters Promised We Wouldn't Leave The Single Market

It's Hannan. Anyway, I disagree. Hannan and others are routinely misquoted or selectively quoted by Continuity Remain, which is perfectly fine in itself (it's part of campaigning), but anyone who believes them at face value is, well, naive at best. Here's Hannan himself on the topic. He's a long-time proponent of a Swiss-style arrangement and he still sees this as a likely outcome.

But none of that matters. Vote Leave were the official voice for leaving the EU. They all campaigned on a platform that the EEA was not an option (Gove, Johnson, Leadsome, Stuart etc.). The leaders of the Remain campaign were equally clear about leaving the "Single Market" (Cameron, Osborne, Straw etc.). All of this happened in major interviews on major political shows, like Marr and the Sunday Politics, and it was subsequently repeated in the wider press and news bulletins. Claims to the contrary are largely ego massaging IMHO, i.e. "we only lost because Vote Leave lied the most". Remain lost because their arguments and campaign were tulipe, end of story. They didn't believe for a minute they'd lose, so they were fine with arguing that leave meant leaving the Single Market

[woohoo]

In reality, it's pretty clear what the UK wants. A free-trade agreement to enable with frictionless trade with the EU. To have its cake and eat it.

Exactly, we want our cake and to eat it. They sell loads of cake to us and we sell less to them. That's us getting our cake.

TomTom, you seem a bit lost.

[jamesbrown]

Barnier thinks it's either CETA or the UK has to give up one or more "red lines", but CETA is not compatible with NI. Something has to give way (in order of least likely probability, the DUP, the EU, the U.K.)

Nice chart. From Barnier?

To date, Barnier has implied that it's EEA or an FTA (not EEA or an FTA or Turkey or Ukraine or Switzerland), and EEA is clearly impossible (to anyone that has been paying attention). So, yes, something has to give way if the EU doesn't want an FTA like CETA/SK.

[tomtomagain]

Isn't this something that should have been agreed before the referendum? Or at the very least, before triggering a 2 year countdown?

It is impossible to do this before the referendum. To do so you would have had to have had the complete negotiations done already with the EU27.

Then Cameron would have had to go to the public vote saying: "As you know, we 'negotiated' the outcome of BREXIT already, should you choose to take it." - it would have given the BREXIT crowd something to say "Look we have a deal in place already", they would have "proved" it was possible.

There were two ways to stop BREXIT. One was 25 years ago, by investing and supporting white working-class families across the country who feel marginalised and ignored.

The second was for Juncker and Merkel to give some ground on the freedom of movement when Cameron tried to get a better deal. They didn't believe we'd leave, so didn't give him anything to take back to the country. He didn't believe he'd lose so didn't push very hard.

[meridian]

It's Hannan. Anyway, I disagree. Hannan and others are routinely misquoted or selectively quoted by Continuity Remain, which is perfectly fine in itself (it's part of campaigning), but anyone who believes them at face value is, well, naive at best. Here's Hannan himself on the topic. He's a long-time proponent of a Swiss-style arrangement and he still sees this as a likely outcome.

But none of that matters. Vote Leave were the official voice for leaving the EU. They all campaigned on a platform that the EEA was not an option (Gove, Johnson, Leadsome, Stuart etc.). The leaders of the Remain campaign were equally clear about leaving the "Single Market" (Cameron, Osborne, Straw etc.). All of this happened in major interviews on major political shows, like Marr and the Sunday Politics, and it was subsequently repeated in the wider press and news bulletins. Claims to the contrary are largely ego massaging IMHO, i.e. "we only lost because Vote Leave lied the most". Remain lost because their arguments and campaign were tulipe, end of story. They didn't believe for a minute they'd lose, so they were fine with arguing that leave meant leaving the Single Market

That link is an odd way to defend your argument? (It's an odd article by Hannan, I'm not exactly sure what he's trying to defend there himself). He says in that link:

I still regard a Swiss-style arrangement as overwhelmingly the likeliest outcome. I suppose you could technically argue that Switzerland is outside the single market in the sense that it is not under the direct jurisdiction of the European Commission and Court; but most people list it, along with the other EFTA states, as a single market participant.

So is his argument that he wants a Swiss-style agreement, and that most people list CH as a single market participant? That seems to confirm exactly my point?

While I don't disagree that the Remain campaign was tulipe, I don't think it's possible to say that this was the sole reason ("end of") for the result.