How do we resolve the Brexit mess?

[Mr Kobayashi]

EFTA:

There is no third force in a binary vote. Anyone who believes there is, is delusional and trying to delude others.

If I offer you a vegetarian option or meat, you don't get to ask for meat and change your mind to fish, when your order of meat is delivered to your table.

Eat your fucking meat.

Now replace meat with shit and you get a more accurate state of play in Brexitania.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I have no idea and it's hard to say because it has never been talked about seriously. Prior to leaving I think it was mentioned and there are quotes from various random Norwegian politicians who were against it but who knows now? It was impossible to discuss it at the time because remainers only wanted to remain and Brexiteers just attacked compromise as remain under a different guise.

The critical error of Brexiteers was they argued that the UK was too tall and would just be given what it wants. Ultimately that was exposed in the negotiations but not because the UK wasn't tall but because the EU didn't care. The EU actually negotiated poorly, they protected the integrity of the single market and the political aspects of the EU but the populations of the EU member states are worse off for it. It was a big political win for the EU but not really for anyone else.

They just took advantage of the fact that it was a time limited process and we didn't have a coherent policy that could ever easily get through Parliament. It's quite easy to negotiate with someone who doesn't know what they want and can't stand their ground because of it. They wouldn't bend and we had to which in the end is what Boris did but only because he wasn't arsed and just wanted power at any cost.

May started with a slim majority and she then triggered Article 50 without any coherent Brexit policy, she then subsequently lost that majority. That sequence of events both in terms of the negotiations and where we have ended up has to be amongst the most stupid and disastrous things any politician has done in recent governmental history.

The critical error of Brexiteers was they argued that the UK was too tall and would just be given what it wants. Ultimately that was exposed in the negotiations but not because the UK wasn't tall but because the EU didn't care. The EU actually negotiated poorly, they protected the integrity of the single market and the political aspects of the EU but the populations of the EU member states are worse off for it. It was a big political win for the EU but not really for anyone else.

The problem was the Brexiteers went in with an arrogant approach based on the fact they thought they could bully the EU. This was based on a sense of entitlement that was built on nothing and an absence of ability. If you recall before negotiations they were warned that we had no experienced negotiators but that was brushed off. For what? David Davis thats what. The man who said on Day1 he would head to berlin to discuss the future with Merkel thus illustrating a Brexit Minister who had no understanding of how the EU worked compounded by turning up to the first day of real negotiations with a shiny new biro and fuck all else then smiling for the team photo showing pride in his ill preparedness.
When he failed Johnson couldn't take that and burned through a series of Ministers - Raab - Barclay and Frost who's rank stupidity must have astounded the EU side and it got to the point where Johnson just wanted it out and signed for anything then sold it as a work of genius in a vain attempt to convince people he had succeeded when in truth the damage he was about to unleash had yet to come

They just took advantage of the fact that it was a time limited process and we didn't have a coherent policy that could ever easily get through Parliament. It's quite easy to negotiate with someone who doesn't know what they want and can't stand their ground because of it. They wouldn't bend and we had to which in the end is what Boris did but only because he wasn't arsed and just wanted power at any cost.

Never mind a coherent policy we didn't have a coherent Government.

 

[Vic]

I have no idea and it's hard to say because it has never been talked about seriously. Prior to leaving I think it was mentioned and there are quotes from various random Norwegian politicians who were against it but who knows now? It was impossible to discuss it at the time because remainers only wanted to remain and Brexiteers just attacked compromise as remain under a different guise.

The critical error of Brexiteers was they argued that the UK was too tall and would just be given what it wants. Ultimately that was exposed in the negotiations but not because the UK wasn't tall but because the EU didn't care. The EU actually negotiated poorly, they protected the integrity of the single market and the political aspects of the EU but the populations of the EU member states are worse off for it. It was a big political win for the EU but not really for anyone else.

They just took advantage of the fact that it was a time limited process and we didn't have a coherent policy that could ever easily get through Parliament. It's quite easy to negotiate with someone who doesn't know what they want and can't stand their ground because of it. They wouldn't bend and we had to which in the end is what Boris did but only because he wasn't arsed and just wanted power at any cost.

May started with a slim majority and she then triggered Article 50 without any coherent Brexit policy, she then subsequently lost that majority. That sequence of events both in terms of the negotiations and where we have ended up has to be amongst the most stupid and disastrous things any politician has done in recent governmental history.

The critical error of Brexiteers was voting for Brexit.

The rest was just rearranging deckchairs.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I'm sorry but you need to read up on EFTA. EFTA was formed off the back of countries like Norway and Switzerland rejecting EU membership. Norway just for example was in the EEC many years ago when it existed however Norwegians rejected joining what became the EU and so they formed EFTA with other countries.

Not true.

History

www.efta.int

1960
The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) is founded by Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, to promote closer economic cooperation and free trade in Europe.

Norway–European Union relations - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In 1962, Norway applied for membership in the European Economic Community (EEC) with fellow EFTA members Ireland, Denmark, and the United Kingdom having applied to join the previous year. When France rebuffed the United Kingdom's application the following year, accession negotiations with Norway and the other countries were also suspended because of the strong economic ties between them. This happened again in 1967.[17]

Norway completed its negotiations for the terms to govern a Norwegian membership in the EEC on 22 January 1972. Following an overwhelming parliamentary majority in favour of joining the EEC in early 1972, the government decided to put the question to a popular referendum, scheduled for September 24 and 25.[18] The result was that 53.5% voted against membership and 46.5% for it.[17] The Norwegian Labour Party government led by Trygve Bratteli resigned over the outcome of the referendum, and a coalition government led by Lars Korvald took over.[19]

Norway entered into a trade agreement with the Community following the outcome of the referendum. That trade agreement remained in force until Norway joined the European Economic Area on 1 January 1994.[20]

On 28 November 1994, a second referendum was held, narrowing the margin but yielding the same result: 52.2% opposed membership and 47.8% in favour, with a turn-out of 88.6%.[21] There are currently no plans to resume their current application, which is currently frozen.

Norway was an associate member of the Western European Union until the organisation terminated in 2011.

Edit.

More bollocks to correct. Norway was never in the EEC.

European Economic Community - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You must be confusing it with the Western European Union.

Western European Union - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Vic]

The problem was the Brexiteers went in with an arrogant approach based on the fact they thought they could bully the EU. This was based on a sense of entitlement that was built on nothing and an absence of ability. If you recall before negotiations they were warned that we had no experienced negotiators but that was brushed off.

We had lots of experienced British negotiators. It's just that their experience was in negotiating as part of the EU team of negotiators.

Replace them with Davies and then Frost, then wonder why we didn't get a good deal.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Another excellent post from you.

And one which again exposes several 'inconvenient truths' that the echo chamber prefers to ignore

Are you going to answer my question?

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Well said........

Explains so much about this thread in just a few words

In total agreement, probably needs a bit more discussion from those who go absent.

 

[Corky]

Not true.

History

www.efta.int

1960
The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) is founded by Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, to promote closer economic cooperation and free trade in Europe.

Norway–European Union relations - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In 1962, Norway applied for membership in the European Economic Community (EEC) with fellow EFTA members Ireland, Denmark, and the United Kingdom having applied to join the previous year. When France rebuffed the United Kingdom's application the following year, accession negotiations with Norway and the other countries were also suspended because of the strong economic ties between them. This happened again in 1967.[17]

Norway completed its negotiations for the terms to govern a Norwegian membership in the EEC on 22 January 1972. Following an overwhelming parliamentary majority in favour of joining the EEC in early 1972, the government decided to put the question to a popular referendum, scheduled for September 24 and 25.[18] The result was that 53.5% voted against membership and 46.5% for it.[17] The Norwegian Labour Party government led by Trygve Bratteli resigned over the outcome of the referendum, and a coalition government led by Lars Korvald took over.[19]

Norway entered into a trade agreement with the Community following the outcome of the referendum. That trade agreement remained in force until Norway joined the European Economic Area on 1 January 1994.[20]

On 28 November 1994, a second referendum was held, narrowing the margin but yielding the same result: 52.2% opposed membership and 47.8% in favour, with a turn-out of 88.6%.[21] There are currently no plans to resume their current application, which is currently frozen.

Norway was an associate member of the Western European Union until the organisation terminated in 2011.

Edit.

More bollocks to correct. Norway was never in the EEC.

European Economic Community - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You must be confusing it with the Western European Union.

Western European Union - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

When I was studying it, we called it just the EC from around 1987 to 1993 and this was the closest Norway got:

 

[NPBlue]

I'm sorry but you need to read up on EFTA. EFTA was formed off the back of countries like Norway and Switzerland rejecting EU membership. Norway just for example was in the EEC many years ago when it existed however Norwegians rejected joining what became the EU and so they formed EFTA with other countries.

EFTA is NOT managed by the EU, nothing is granted by the EU because EFTA has nothing to do with the EU. Countries like Norway rejected EU membership however the consequence of that was they had to find a medium to maintain trade within the EEA. EFTA trading arrangements are not managed or overseen by the EU, any EFTA country can sign trade deals independent of anyone else.

The only relationship that EFTA states have with the EU is through their negotiated participation within the EEA single market but the cost of that relationship is they have no say in the rules of that market and they have to accept freedom of movement. Some would say actually that there is a mutual advantage to freedom of movement but obviously some wouldn't.

Please remember that the EU does not contain all of Europe, the EU is just a political organisation that sits within the EEA. It is the EU and its political structure that I and many others are skeptical of. I voted remain for economic reasons but I would vote to leave the EU if it was possible to retain the economic benefits through a decent deal but that wasn't asked of us in the referendum. I am not interested in the EU, I am interested in trade with Europe and that's where we will suffer economically.

EFTA and Switzerland prove that it is possible to maintain some trading relationship and trade within the single market without having to be an EU member. The biggest problem of leave was that the final deal ensured we left the EEA and not just the EU. Nobody however ever voted to leave Europe, they voted to leave the political aspect of the EU.

Not a single leave voter voted to leave with any specific deal or none at all because that wasn't the question of the referendum. The mitigation of leave therefore came down to the politicians who had to negotiate it and in the end it's those politicians, the poisonous political climate and party politics that is to blame for how things ended up. The fact that even now Labour have no policy for making amends on the EU deal just proves it, they won't tackle this topic because they know they'd lose the election!

Icelandic foreign minister to UK: Please join EFTA

‘Everyone wants to sell you goods and services,’ minister says.

www.politico.eu

You're a bit confused about things as well because the UK set up EFTA back in the late 50's or early 60's not because membership of the EEC was rejected, but as a defence against the perceived economic threat the EEC posed.

Look, at the end of the day, I'm as pissed off as you are we have left the EU. I totally get that, but if we want to rejoin, it's not our decision. It's their choice to allow us back in, and that's it. It will be on their terms.

It doesn't matter one jot what we want. We'll have to prove to our European neighbours we won't be stroppy twats wanting special treatment for this or that, and at the moment, that is decades away.

I can't think of a single negative our membership of the EU adversely impacted me on a daily basis. Not one. I always said our membership of the EU was a break on the excesses a right wing government wanted to impose on us, and, well, we didn't have raw shit flowing down every river like we now have because profit comes before responsibility for the environment wth no comeback.

It doesn't matter what we want. We have left the EU. It's going to take a long, long time before they'll let us back in, if ever.

Whatever the debates are centered on, be they brexiteer or remoaner thoughts, we have a lot to prove before we can rejoin the club.

 

[hampshireblue]

The fact it was a spoof has been all over the news ever since…

Thanks-I hadn't seen that. I'm glad it was.