Mrs May, Hero of the Brexiters.

[Flexo]

I think you will find membership of the EEA requires payment to the EU. You cna have partial access like Switzerland or full access like Norway. They both pay the EU billions of £'s.

 

EEA members also have to accept the EU rules but have no say in their making.

 

If Britain continues as part of the EEA, continues to contribute to the EU budget, continues to enact the EU legislation and has no say in the EU Parliament then this may be a Good Thing. The EU will be able to make better progress without Britain acting like a sulky child.

 

But we still won't have that £350m per week, the "sovereignty" claims will still be nonsensical and we still won't get that free unicorn per household.

[unbeliever]

The political mandate relates only to the fact we leave. Not the terms. This is why brexit means brexit is pretty meaningless because other than leaving the EU it means different things to different people.

 

Were that to be reviewed by a party from a general election, then that would cancel it out.

 

Not that im advocating a second referendum.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2016 at 17:04 ----------

 

 

 

I think you will find membership of the EEA requires payment to the EU. You cna have partial access like Switzerland or full access like Norway. They both pay the EU billions of £'s.

 

If free movement is out then you wont get access they have been very clear on that.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2016 at 17:10 ----------

 

 

There are two main examples of countries with single market access being the Swiss and the Norwegians.

 

Both have had to accept that membership of the EEA has included free movement of people and making payments to the EU. The EU has stated no access without free movement.

By access I mean access on existing terms as an internal market and not straight access as a country on the outside.

 

 

That's not what the word "access" means.

[Flexo]

Uh oh! Now both "Brexit" and "access" have vague meanings. It gets worse!

[unbeliever]

EEA members also have to accept the EU rules but have no say in their making.

 

If Britain continues as part of the EEA, continues to contribute to the EU budget, continues to enact the EU legislation and has no say in the EU Parliament then this may be a Good Thing. The EU will be able to make better progress without Britain acting like a sulky child.

 

But we still won't have that £350m per week, the "sovereignty" claims will still be nonsensical and we still won't get that free unicorn per household.

 

This is not true either.

EU members have surrender control of various areas of law to the EU. EEC members less so. EFTA members even less.

Norway much pays less/capita and much less/GDP into the EU than France. Switzerland pays even less.

Norway has more sovereignty than France. Switzerland has more than Norway. Canada has more that either.

Only a subset EU law affects Norway. All EU law affects France. Still less affects Switzerland. Some, but very little, affects Canada.

 

So to sum up. Even part-out is an improvement.

We'll lose voting rights on EU law. Some of that EU law will affect us. Still we have no voting rights on US law and some of that affects us.

Once we leave, EU law will have dramatically less effect on the UK, and Uk institutions will no longer be in a position to be overridden by EU institutions.

 

This was all explained in great detail in the referendum campaign. But the remain side sought to muddy the hell out of it in the hope that we'd vote remain in a fog of confusion. Didn't work. Not much point carrying on with it now.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2016 at 17:33 ----------

 

Uh oh! Now both "Brexit" and "access" have vague meanings. It gets worse!

 

It's not vague.

Any country not currently in under trade sanctions can trade with the EU. They don't pay.

Access is a contraction of "tariff free access" or possibly "barrier free access". That's its etymology. It's extremely misleading though. The remain campaign used this to try to con us into voting remain. It didn't work.

Edited August 31, 2016 by unbeliever

[999tigger]

That's not what the word "access" means.

 

In the context of the EU and the single market it is.

 

It doesnt mean we will be blocked from the single market completely as in we cna still trade with it, but it will mean we will be treated as outsiders and subject to tariffs and regulations which those with full unfettered access due to being members of the EU or EEA are not.

 

 

No idea why you are doging the question. its not a trick.

[unbeliever]

In the context of the EU and the single market it is.

 

It doesnt mean we will be blocked from the single market completely as in we cna still trade with it, but it will mean we will be treated as outsiders and subject to tariffs and regulations which those with full unfettered access due to being members of the EU or EEA are not.

 

 

No idea why you are doging the question. its not a trick.

 

 

It is kind of a trick. Although I do not suggest that this is the way that you personally intend it.

The average tariff for trade with the EU is ~3%. That's the absolute (and profoundly unlikely) worst case.

 

What question am I dodging?

[999tigger]

EEA members also have to accept the EU rules but have no say in their making.

 

If Britain continues as part of the EEA, continues to contribute to the EU budget, continues to enact the EU legislation and has no say in the EU Parliament then this may be a Good Thing. The EU will be able to make better progress without Britain acting like a sulky child.

 

But we still won't have that £350m per week, the "sovereignty" claims will still be nonsensical and we still won't get that free unicorn per household.

 

No idea why you are trying to tell me? I already know. Perhaps you should have quoted unbeliever or angelfire? I dont see how Britain is acting like a sulky child at all.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2016 at 17:58 ----------

 

It is kind of a trick. Although I do not suggest that this is the way that you personally intend it.

The average tariff for trade with the EU is ~3%. That's the absolute (and profoundly unlikely) worst case.

 

What question am I dodging?

 

You are making it more complicated than it is. Still nonplussed as to why and you dont give a straight answer.

 

If we have a choice between Deal A

 

Access to single market on existing terms as a member of the EEA + accepting free movement + paying for that access like the Swiss or the more expensive Norwegian option

 

or Deal B

 

No freedom of movement either way, but loss off unfettered access as a member of the EU or EEA, then which one does Brexit say we take?

 

Its not just about tariffs, its freedom to conduct business as well as administrative and compliance hurdles that will make everything more time consuming and expensive. If we arent included in the single market then many companies will want to be in there so will relocate or just open up/ expand in places that are.

[unbeliever]

No idea why you are trying to tell me? I already know. Perhaps you should have quoted unbeliever or angelfire? I dont see how Britain is acting like a sulky child at all.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2016 at 17:58 ----------

 

 

You are making it more complicated than it is. Still nonplussed as to why and you dont give a straight answer.

 

If we have a choice between Deal A

 

Access to single market on existing terms as a member of the EEA + accepting free movement + paying for that access like the Swiss or the more expensive Norwegian option

 

or Deal B

 

No freedom of movement either way, but loss off unfettered access as a member of the EU or EEA, then which one does Brexit say we take?

 

Its not just about tariffs, its freedom to conduct business as well as administrative and compliance hurdles that will make everything more time consuming and expensive. If we arent included in the single market then many companies will want to be in there so will relocate or just open up/ expand in places that are.

 

 

Only about 7% of UK businesses trade with the EU. Bilateral agreements can smooth this without surrender of sovereignty.

I'm looking for something closer to option B. But the arrangement will likely be Swiss-style. A set of bilateral agreements rather than simple membership of a scheme.

There's a massive EU trade surplus with the UK which they'll want to protect.

[martin6]

Remainers:

 

Deluded

 

Finger pointing

 

Cry babies

[Santo]

Remainers:

 

Deluded

 

Finger pointing

 

Cry babies

 

What staggering profundity.....