The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[L00b]

Oh dear you lost the debate and are off to sulk.

 

No, I simply wrote to the effect that your personal attack, in the paragraph I quoted, was wasted.

 

But since you're clearly not interested in heeding that, nor to keeping the debate to the points of discussion (as I answered the rest of your earlier post with topical questions, but which you have studiously ignored in your infantile jibe above), you can now join the ill-mannered and other cretins on my ignore list.

 

Feel free to consider it a "loss of debate" and me "sulking" if you wish

Everybody has "access" to the EU internal "single" market.

I thought I clearly differentiated between "being part of" and "having access" in my post, and that my reference to "some" access is a fair representation of the varying levels of access which a non-EU, non-EEA country can get to the single market? Edited December 1, 2016 by L00b

[Flexo]

But it's equally certain that we'll keep at least some access to it. For a price.

 

So David Davis is making the second hint this week at the Norway/EEA model. The markets have risen on the news.

 

The first hint was the news item that leaving the EU might not automatically mean leaving the EEA, as the EEA has a separate article in its treaty.

 

Norwegians pay about as much as Brits to access EU so there won't be a fantasy windfall for the NHS, but there won't be such economic damage either.

 

We would be out of the part of the EU that people object to - the political and financial union.

[unbeliever]

I thought I clearly differentiated between "being part of" and "having access" in my post?

 

You referred to either enhanced access or tariff free access (I can't tell which) as "access".

[L00b]

We would be out of the part of the EU that people object to - the political and financial union.

We were never (nor, arguably, ever going to be-) "in" the financial union as such, but only to the barest of extent required to maintain passporting rights unmolested.

You referred to either enhanced access or tariff free access (I can't tell which) as "access".

Where?

 

Remind me please? (genuine ask)

 

EDIT - to be sure: I refer indiscriminately to "full access to", "membership of" and "part of" the Single Market, because they all mean the same thing. Anything less than that is still "access" of course, semantically speaking. But not economically speaking, by any stretches of meaning. Which is why I always qualify less-than-full access as such, either directly or by reference to membership/non-membership, or by specifically mentioning "full" access when I mean access according to EU membership level.

 

Thinking about Flexo's post above though, I'll confess late in the day that EEA membership (distinctly from EU membership) is actually somewhat at odds because, technically, it's still "membership of" and "part of" the Single Market...but it does not provide "full access" to the same extent as EU Membership (being the reason why e.g. Swiss banks route their financials through London (mostly) and, in my game, Swiss, Norwegian etc. IP attorneys route their EUIPO applications through Germany and the UK (mostly)). On a scale of access, I'd call the EEA the penultimate rung, just underneath the topmost EU membership rung.

Edited December 1, 2016 by L00b

[unbeliever]

Where?

 

Remind me please? (genuine ask)

 

Right here:

 

We'll not remain part of it ('member', full as now or partial like Norway, Switzerland, etc.) without free movement, that much is sure.

 

But it's equally certain that we'll keep at least some access to it. For a price.

[Flexo]

We were never (nor, arguably, ever going to be-) "in" the financial union as such, but only to the barest of extent required to maintain passporting rights unmolested.

 

That's the irony.

 

Still, the EU27 will be able to get on with things without the bad behaviour of the UK in the EU parliament. Things wouldn't change much here. People won't notice the UK's loss of influence in the EU and will be happy.

[L00b]

Right here:

We'll not remain part of it ('member', full as now or partial like Norway, Switzerland, etc.) without free movement, that much is sure.

 

But it's equally certain that we'll keep at least some access to it. For a price.

So where in that does it refer to "enhanced access" or "tariff free access"? And what was the point of your earlier post?

 

Stop putting words in my posts which aren't there, if you please. It's close to being as bad as editing other posters' words in quotes (which is strictly prohibited on SF).

 

See my edit also.

[aa2900]

 

No, I simply wrote to the effect that your personal attack, in the paragraph I quoted, was wasted.

 

But since you're clearly not interested in heeding that, nor to keeping the debate to the points of discussion (as I answered the rest of your earlier post with topical questions, but which you have studiously ignored in your infantile jibe above), you can now join the ill-mannered and other cretins on my ignore list.

 

Feel free to consider it a "loss of debate" and me "sulking" if you wish

I thought I clearly differentiated between "being part of" and "having access" in my post, and that my reference to "some" access is a fair representation of the varying levels of access which a non-EU, non-EEA country can get to the single market?

 

Lord Vader the flounce is strong in this one. It has clearly totally passed you by that the thread is about the consequences of leaving the EU. Actually one of the consequences is that they will have exactly the same problems accessing the UKs market that we will have accessing theirs. Something that you don't seem to want to discuss.m

 

Hey here's a simple question. If the EU cannot sell the 1.5 million cars to us that they currently do and we can't sell the 1 million cars to them that we currently do, who loses most sales?

If we have to manufacture the 1.5 million cars that were previously imported from the EU but lose the 1 million that we previously exported to the EU would we be making more cars or less cars?

Edited December 1, 2016 by aa2900

[L00b]

We would be out of the part of the EU that people object to - the political and financial union.

Thinking back to this post, Flexo: actually, I doubt that EEA membership would do regarding the political union angle (...or with Brexiters for that matter), since EEA membership maintains the relevance and jurisdiction of the ECJ.

 

In that context, the 'Canada plus' option (still-) being mooted at the moment, appears to correspond to an end game that ticks most of everyone's boxes on both sides of the fence. EEA in most but name, without the ECJ jurisdiction issue. The issue is of course, as ever, whether big corpo, markets and politicians will make (let?) it happen.

[unbeliever]

So where in that does it refer to "enhanced access" or "tariff free access"? And what was the point of your earlier post?

 

Stop putting words in my posts which aren't there, if you please. It's close to being as bad as editing other posters' words in quotes (which is strictly prohibited on SF).

 

See my edit also.

 

I'm not putting words anywhere. Re-read what was said.

I'm not saying that you used the terms tariff free access or enhanced access. I'm saying that you used "access" as a shorthand for one of those and I corrected you.