Should My Mom Get A Second Cat?
Animals & Nature35 mins ago
When Are These Idiotic Anti-Democratic Remoaners Going To Give Up?
106 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The problem with Brexit is that when we voted, we voted to leave the EU, but at the time, we did not vote on how we were going to lea e and under what terms. This is why the terms 'hard Brexit' and 'soft Brexit' came about.
These terms have increasingly been used as debate focused on the terms of the UK's departure from the EU. There is no strict definition of either, but they are used to refer to the closeness of the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit.
So at one extreme, "hard" Brexit could involve the UK refusing to compromise on issues like the free movement of people even if meant leaving the single market. At the other end of the scale, a "soft" Brexit might follow a similar path to Norway, which is a member of the single market and has to accept the free movement of people as a result of that.
I would understand why people would protest in favour or one over the other, but not protest about the principle of leaving. That's already been decided.
These terms have increasingly been used as debate focused on the terms of the UK's departure from the EU. There is no strict definition of either, but they are used to refer to the closeness of the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit.
So at one extreme, "hard" Brexit could involve the UK refusing to compromise on issues like the free movement of people even if meant leaving the single market. At the other end of the scale, a "soft" Brexit might follow a similar path to Norway, which is a member of the single market and has to accept the free movement of people as a result of that.
I would understand why people would protest in favour or one over the other, but not protest about the principle of leaving. That's already been decided.
As sp says, there is more than one way to leave the EU and the result on its own is no guide as to which one is more popular.
Re: the protest, they are certainly within their rights. I don't personally see the point (and declined invitations to attend for that reason), but it was all arranged legally and went along in a pretty orderly fashion. Plus it's clearly in response to the vote that is happening this week on the withdrawal bill, which seems fair enough to me.
As usual, I don't think "it's annoying"/"it's inconvenient"/"they're stupid" is a particularly valid reason to object to a mass event being held, but that's just a fundamental disagreement on values, I suppose.
Re: the protest, they are certainly within their rights. I don't personally see the point (and declined invitations to attend for that reason), but it was all arranged legally and went along in a pretty orderly fashion. Plus it's clearly in response to the vote that is happening this week on the withdrawal bill, which seems fair enough to me.
As usual, I don't think "it's annoying"/"it's inconvenient"/"they're stupid" is a particularly valid reason to object to a mass event being held, but that's just a fundamental disagreement on values, I suppose.
There was no hard nor soft to vote on. Leave means leave. Debating what comes after is for the negotiation table. So called soft is simply an attempt to not really leave after all. If the EU wishes to trade under favourable conditions then it needs to extract it's digit and stop bleating on about demanding a payment to leave and such nonsense, and get on agreeing with the easier to agree areas.
//Leave means leave.//
That is a meaningless soundbite. Of course leave means leave, that's how words work. But as you say, there was no vote on how - this is currently a major point of disagreement even between powerful supporters of Brexit.
// So called soft is simply an attempt to not really leave after all. //
That is an opinion. Believe it or not, there are Leave voters who voted that way because they believed Johnson (head of the official leave campaign in case you'd forgotten) when he said it would result in EEA membership.
That is a meaningless soundbite. Of course leave means leave, that's how words work. But as you say, there was no vote on how - this is currently a major point of disagreement even between powerful supporters of Brexit.
// So called soft is simply an attempt to not really leave after all. //
That is an opinion. Believe it or not, there are Leave voters who voted that way because they believed Johnson (head of the official leave campaign in case you'd forgotten) when he said it would result in EEA membership.
Just imagine if we had voted to Remain by the same margin, and Cameron's govt then used that vote to justify adopting the Euro, scrapping our French-subsidised rebate, joining Schengen, etc. etc.
And then whenever anyone objected they shrieked down any criticism with "There was a referendum! Will of the people! Will of the people! Saboteur! Anti-democrats! Fifth columnists! Enemies of the state!"
That's the opposite side of the coin to where we are now.
And then whenever anyone objected they shrieked down any criticism with "There was a referendum! Will of the people! Will of the people! Saboteur! Anti-democrats! Fifth columnists! Enemies of the state!"
That's the opposite side of the coin to where we are now.
Barnier's bluff is being called as the UK talks now of walking;
http://
http://
A lot of this is ridiculous semantics.
Leaving aside the ludicrous EEA concept, non-members of the EU do not contribute towards its budget; they do not belong to either the single market or the customs union; they do not accept freedom of movement; they do not submit to rulings by the European Court of Justice; they do not have laws foisted upon them which are made by unelected foreign civil servants.
These “negotiations” (if they can be worthy of that term) are simply about retaining some or all of the above (and more besides) in one form or another. The referendum result (please don’t come in with “four-fifths of five-eighths of F-all”, Eddie) determined that the UK would leave the EU. That means ditching all of the above and a lot more besides. The strategy to achieve this is straightforward and is currently being debated in Parliament.
Other nations have trading relationships with the EU either via formal trading agreements or simply by trade happening. None seems to suffer the kind of perils currently being portrayed by “Project Fear Part Two”.
The EEA is a ridiculous concept because it confers on the non-EU members (Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway) almost all the responsibilities of being an EU member whilst having none of the (very limited) influence that individual nations have on its policies and procedures. The position of the three non-EU EEA members is interesting. Norway’s politicians hankered after EU (then EEC) membership along with the UK in the 1960s. They were finally accepted but, despite an overwhelming parliamentary majority in favourp, the proposal was defeated in a referendum in 1972. A simple trade agreement with the EU followed and that remained until Norway joined the EEA in 1994. Iceland applied to join the EU in 2010 but withdrew its application in 2015. There is little doubt that the principle opposition to EU membership is that of the Common Fisheries Policy (which does not apply to the EEA). Liechtenstein has no aspirations to join the EU. With a GDP per head of around three times that of the UK it probably has no wish to be told that it must share that wealth with Poland, Bulgaria and Romania.
The notion that our EU conditions of membership might be tightened if we had voted to remain are fanciful. Whilst I would not trust the EU to stick to its word, the UK has permanent opt outs from Schengen and the euro and they seem, for the moment anyway until the foolish electorates come to their senses, to have eased their quest for "ever closer union". Nobody suggested that those opt-outs would rescinded during the campaign in the same way that nobody suggested we would remain part of the single market or the customs union.
The vote to leave the EU meant that the UK should be rid of each and every pernicious influence wielded by the EU over UK affairs. There is no halfway house. You are either in or you are out. To my mind EEA members are simply EU members by another name.
Leaving aside the ludicrous EEA concept, non-members of the EU do not contribute towards its budget; they do not belong to either the single market or the customs union; they do not accept freedom of movement; they do not submit to rulings by the European Court of Justice; they do not have laws foisted upon them which are made by unelected foreign civil servants.
These “negotiations” (if they can be worthy of that term) are simply about retaining some or all of the above (and more besides) in one form or another. The referendum result (please don’t come in with “four-fifths of five-eighths of F-all”, Eddie) determined that the UK would leave the EU. That means ditching all of the above and a lot more besides. The strategy to achieve this is straightforward and is currently being debated in Parliament.
Other nations have trading relationships with the EU either via formal trading agreements or simply by trade happening. None seems to suffer the kind of perils currently being portrayed by “Project Fear Part Two”.
The EEA is a ridiculous concept because it confers on the non-EU members (Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway) almost all the responsibilities of being an EU member whilst having none of the (very limited) influence that individual nations have on its policies and procedures. The position of the three non-EU EEA members is interesting. Norway’s politicians hankered after EU (then EEC) membership along with the UK in the 1960s. They were finally accepted but, despite an overwhelming parliamentary majority in favourp, the proposal was defeated in a referendum in 1972. A simple trade agreement with the EU followed and that remained until Norway joined the EEA in 1994. Iceland applied to join the EU in 2010 but withdrew its application in 2015. There is little doubt that the principle opposition to EU membership is that of the Common Fisheries Policy (which does not apply to the EEA). Liechtenstein has no aspirations to join the EU. With a GDP per head of around three times that of the UK it probably has no wish to be told that it must share that wealth with Poland, Bulgaria and Romania.
The notion that our EU conditions of membership might be tightened if we had voted to remain are fanciful. Whilst I would not trust the EU to stick to its word, the UK has permanent opt outs from Schengen and the euro and they seem, for the moment anyway until the foolish electorates come to their senses, to have eased their quest for "ever closer union". Nobody suggested that those opt-outs would rescinded during the campaign in the same way that nobody suggested we would remain part of the single market or the customs union.
The vote to leave the EU meant that the UK should be rid of each and every pernicious influence wielded by the EU over UK affairs. There is no halfway house. You are either in or you are out. To my mind EEA members are simply EU members by another name.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles47 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles122 mins ago
Don't Eat Celery In The Sun, Folks!
Body & Soul296 mins ago
Music326 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.