1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

So what now for Brexit?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by dumpty, Dec 13, 2018.

  1. dumpty

    dumpty Star commenter

    Norway is not in the CU.

    Funnily enough it appears May is a quite massive opponent of Norway. If you read this from The Guardian, it is pretty obvious why:

    What does membership of the European Economic Area provide?
    EEA membership gives Norway full access to the EU’s internal market, allowing it to trade goods with EU states without customs fees, except food and drinks which are subsidised by the EU. Iceland and Liechtenstein are also members of the EEA.

    In return for that access Norway is obliged to implement all the EU’s laws relating to the internal market. As a result, Norway has had to implement about three-quarters of all EU legislation, including the working time directive.

    What say does Norway have over EU rules?
    None. Norway has representatives in EU institutions, but they have no decision-making power in how EU rules are drafted.

    The country has been granted participation rights, but no voting rights, in several of the union’s programmes, bodies and initiatives, including the European Defence Agency, Frontex, Europol and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

    We pay, but have no say: that’s the reality of Norway’s relationship with the EU
    Espen Barth Eide
    Read more
    Is the Norway option cheaper?
    Yes, but not by much. In 2012, Norway was paying €340m (£245m) a year into the EU budget – the tenth-highest contributor. The thinktank Open Europe estimates that the UK would pay 94% of its current costs (£31.4bn annually) if it left the EU but adopted a Norway-type arrangement.

    What about immigration?
    The UK has more control over its borders than Norway, which is part of the Schengen border-free area. As a result, Norway has higher per capita immigration than the UK. However, as a signatory to the agreement, it does have a say in how it operates.
     
  2. Burndenpark

    Burndenpark Star commenter

    Easily- like Norway isn't in the EU, nor Switzerland nor Turkey

    Which talk was it where Davis turned up with no preparation, just his innate British superiority and the knowledge that as we account for 10% of EU trade and they account for 50% of ours: they need us more than we need them?

    What would be the wrong result?

    You don't know what those who voted to leave the EU wanted- you just said as much. If we don't know what people wanted how can it be supplied? And given that the initial question was so vague it seems fair to include a Remain option.
     
    sodalime and irs1054 like this.
  3. irs1054

    irs1054 Star commenter

    I suggest you read my post more carefully.

    I have never pretended to have addressed something if I haven't. This is just your usual act of desperation speaking.

    As for rushing through the referendum, read my post more carefully. Did I say the referendum would be pushed through?
     
  4. dumpty

    dumpty Star commenter

    Just posted re Norway. The backstop is pretty close to what you want, yet parliament are rejecting it.

    Maybe, but still does not change the fact the withdrawal act and final deal are two separate discussions or that the final trade deal talk has not even started.

    Anything that has us voting again to leave the EU. That's the only reason some people want another go - they think we voted 'wrong'.


    How far do you want to go with not knowing the most intricate parts of people's minds? Did those voting remain know how the EU is going to evolve? They certainly did not back in 75 (the EEC).


    I say consistently the fact is people crossed a box to LEAVE the EU. If, as you say, they had doubts about what that meant or felt it did not offer what they wanted, why cross it? All the options you come with have us remaining under EU jurisdiction, the LEAVE box was not offering that, as was said countless times in debates, too.


    People weighed it all up and made their choice. The GE held after also had two parties promising to respect the leave vote and they swept up votes, while the 'we know you really meant Norway...Switzerland....anything but leave' party, the Lib Dems, lost votes.
     
  5. Photo51

    Photo51 Established commenter

    Turkey is in the CU, Norway and Switzerland are not .
    I'd be happy with EEA membership but joining Schengen could be a step too far for most
     
  6. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    Then quote the messages in which you addressed the various problems I outlined, then there will be no argument.
     
    nomad likes this.
  7. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    What do you feel would be the disadvantage of Canada+ in comparison, bearing in mind that it would not involve the hefty costs and other restrictions of EEA membership?
     
  8. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    Forget it.

    It's all over bar the recriminations.
     
  9. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    They didn't have a clue what leaving meant in terms of its real effects. It was just some dumb jingoistic macho statement. People are still aggressively shouting for No Deal on the TV as if it makes them look like some high powered business person. They just look daft. And everyone's laughing at us.
     
  10. dumpty

    dumpty Star commenter

    I think the frustration there is by making it very clear, not least these last weeks, that parliament will not allow us to walk away, it has ensured and will ensure the EU does not budge. May comes in with 'I need the backstop changed or else!!' and the EU smiles and says 'or else what??'

    One obvious tactic of hardline remainers was to try and get a rubbish deal so we all prefer to stay in. It has ended up in a fudge that pleases few.

    Sure, there are some actively wanting WTO rules, save the billions, save the energy of talks and uncertainty. They are few, I would think.

    There are more who do not fear WTO, yes. (But who prefer a deal.....that be me :D)

    Whatever you may think, it sure is one way to end all of this - and end it once and for all.

    Then we can see whose reality is.....reality.
     
  11. FrankWolley

    FrankWolley Star commenter

    Haven't we committed to paying what we owe (because of commitments made in the past) whether or not there is a deal? because, as I heard pointed out, getting a reputation as a country that doesn't settle its debts will be an awful way to start a new era of making bilateral trade agreements... ;)
     
    Burndenpark and sparkleghirl like this.
  12. EmanuelShadrack

    EmanuelShadrack Star commenter

    Spot on.
     
  13. dumpty

    dumpty Star commenter

    @FrankWolley I agree it is only cricket to pay what we are obligated to but leaving without a transition means no payments to the EU in that period of two years, quite a few bucks by any account.
     
  14. SirPurrAlot

    SirPurrAlot Established commenter

    No, the £39 billion includes UK contributions to the EU budget for 2019 and 2020. If we leave on 29th March, these would not be due.
     
  15. SirPurrAlot

    SirPurrAlot Established commenter

    I doubt it. There's no majority in the Commons for any of the options, and if today's news from Brussels is accurate, I doubt that TM has got enough to see her deal passed. It'll be a general election and then we'll see Jeremy Corbyn making an even bigger mess of the whole thing than Theresa May.
     
  16. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    Nothing about Brexit is going to please everyone. The art of politics is in finding workable compromises. What you call a fudge, some call a compromise.

    Because the referendum result was so slight, the government has to respect the views of those who wanted to remain. Had the result been more definitive, say 75% leave, it would be different.
     
  17. SirPurrAlot

    SirPurrAlot Established commenter

    You do not need to know anything beyond that which was on the ballot paper. If parliament wanted to know more, it could have legislated to include a requirement to specify reasons for your vote on the ballot paper. It did not. So all we need to know is that the majority of voters expressed a preference to leave the EU. How that is done is up to the politicians.
     
  18. sparkleghirl

    sparkleghirl Star commenter

  19. irs1054

    irs1054 Star commenter

    Read the post it is not that long.
     
  20. dumpty

    dumpty Star commenter

    Well OK we did not have the vote but with estimates of hundreds of MPs voting it down, I'm not sure that can be called a compromise. It certainly has zero compromises for the party they need above all to compromise for - the DUP.

    How May could form a government dependent upon the DUP knowing she was going to shaft all they stood for in her deal, is not the work of someone looking to compromise.

    Democracy hurts but it delivers decisions. The idea some would be saying we need to remain with compromises to the hurt feelings of the 48% had it been reversed, is rather disingenuous.

    The debate on the EU would have been categorically shut down and you would be telling me to grow up and accept the result had it been remain by 4%.
     

Share This Page