Which, as has already been mentioned numerous times over the years was the problem with the "in or out" vote. There are leavers and probably a few remainers who would have voted to leave but stay closely tied like Norway. There are leavers who want completely out. There are leavers who want out but want as good a deal as we already have (unicorns). There are leavers who voted leave to get rid of all the Muslims. Whatever happens over the next few months we're going to have a nation of at least half of the people extremely unhappy. A compromise of some sort is required. I should add understand your views and your personal reasons for leaving have always been clear. The mess we're in is entirely down to nobody knowing what leaving would look like 2 years ago and really I don't place any blame on anyone in this country for voting one way or another, my frustration is mainly directed at those in power.
Norway is in the EU in everything but name including paying a big wedge to EU , accepting free movement , being subject to EU regulations enforceable by EU. The reason they aren't in EU is as they won't be part of the common fisheries policy.
tbh i have never understood the fascination of the Norway deal as it has nearly all the aspects that caused the vast majority of leave voters to vote that way so would be really unpopular.
The irony is that it’s the kind of deal a country would go for with a view to one day becoming a full member of the EU.
buggered if i know but then i cannot work out the motivations of so many in Parl who seemed determined from May downwards to make the biggest clusterfuck possible. For the first time since reaching 18 I don't expect to be voting in next GE since i cannot bring myself to vote for any of the self serving twats .
Plan Z, then, before we go back to plan A of no deal. Maybe we should just go for a Greek deal and call it the Ouzo.
The danger there is that it might be a Trojan horse. Actually - you'd better ban me before I turn into Fosse 2
The Greek deal? Full membership of the EU then? Yes, we should go for that, but without joining the Eurozone. That would be an excellent deal, if only it were possible.
Indeed, there’s all sorts of agendas at play within the House. Party politics, career advancement, personal financial gain etc etc etc. They all have a responsibility to reach a conclusion that is the best way forward for our country, that’s their job, that’s our Parliamentary democracy (which is why I hate referendums, as we don’t have a direct democracy) what they’re currently doing is pushing their own agendas and ideologies before their primary responsibility.
The backstop only comes into effect if the Brexiteers who said the technological solution to the border issue was easy - were lying. The same people who said it was a piece of piss to solve, are now the same ones crying over the backstop. Go figure.
It’s a halfway house, worse than what we’ve got, but every deal is and was always going to be. It was never about the economy apparently, it was about a misunderstanding of what Sovereignty is...oh and foreigners.
We have said regardless what happens, we will not put a physical border in Ireland. The EU could make a special exemption and not put up a border, they won't do that, though. A border could be avoided.
That’s simply not true though. If we revert to WTO terms then we have to have a border to protect our market, and the same goes for the EU in reverse. The Brexiteers saying otherwise are lying and using the semantics of the lack of a specific WTO rule that mentions a physical border as ‘proof’ that there doesn’t need to be one. However what they haven’t bothered adding is that without physical checks on the border then any nation could complain that we weren’t protecting the integrity of our market, and the WTO would act on that.
Excellent post You could always escape the flak by taking a short cruise around the Cyclades ... a "minor tour" .... I thank you all please log in to view this image
