Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

mayonnaise

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

If she can get a more-or-less Norway type of deal for single market access, frictionless borders via a customs partnership

Norway option looks increasingly likely. The brexit ultras might be able to raise the necessary 48 signatures to trigger a leadership challenge but as you said, they'll never get the votes. It's time for the PM to face down the fanatics.

If the usual suspects bleat on about how it's not adhering to the 'will of the peeple', we can always refer to statements made by head honchos of the Leave campaign portraying the Norway option as a viable or even desirable one;

Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing

Nigel Farage, Ukip leader

The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people

Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive

Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK

Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder

System

mayonnaise wrote: »

If the usual suspects bleat on about how it's not adhering to the 'will of the peeple', we can always refer to statements made by head honchos of the Leave campaign portraying the Norway option as a viable or even desirable one;


Nigel Farage, Ukip leader

Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive

Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder

Not sure about this. I have it on good authority that out means out.

Unless it's something we want in obvs - see Galileo for recent example.

Zero_Gravitas

In other news...

https://evolvepolitics.com/tories-ridiculed-after-shamelessly-taking-credit-for-new-eu-law-to-protect-holidaymakers/

The source may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but it does seem about par for the current course that the government is trying to spin European legislation to protect consumers as its own...

System

Zero_Gravitas wrote: »

In other news...

https://evolvepolitics.com/tories-ridiculed-after-shamelessly-taking-credit-for-new-eu-law-to-protect-holidaymakers/

The source may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but it does seem about par for the current course that the government is trying to spin European legislation to protect consumers as its own...

They've done this before.

Why is it allowed? Companies can't falsely advertise a packet of crisps or moisturiser but a political party can spout whatever lies they want? Why? It's mad.

buglawton

mayonnaise wrote: »

...Norway option looks increasingly likely...

Norway option = Policy on EU migration/freedom of movement to remain same as within the EU.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11190269/If-EU-migration-is-the-problem-Switzerland-and-Norway-are-not-the-answer.html

And the entire Brexit project was trigged by one main issue: A disproportionate number of people immigrating into the UK. With trade and EU court being sideshows.

Still, let's await May's unveiling of todays novelty:
Third customs model devised ahead of cabinet talks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44671507

(set your stopwatch to see how long before Junker/Barnier issue their out-of-hand rejection of anything that touches EU-UK FoM)

Matt_L

mayonnaise wrote: »

Norway option looks increasingly likely. The brexit ultras might be able to raise the necessary 48 signatures to trigger a leadership challenge but as you said, they'll never get the votes. It's time for the PM to face down the fanatics.

If the usual suspects bleat on about how it's not adhering to the 'will of the peeple', we can always refer to statements made by head honchos of the Leave campaign portraying the Norway option as a viable or even desirable one;


Nigel Farage, Ukip leader

Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive

Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder

None of which were made during the referendum...

Crashy_Time

buglawton wrote: »

Norway option = Policy on EU migration/freedom of movement to remain same as within the EU.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11190269/If-EU-migration-is-the-problem-Switzerland-and-Norway-are-not-the-answer.html

And the entire Brexit project was trigged by one main issue: A disproportionate number of people immigrating into the UK. With trade and EU court being sideshows.

Still, let's await May's unveiling of todays novelty:
Third customs model devised ahead of cabinet talks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44671507

(set your stopwatch to see how long before Junker/Barnier issue their out-of-hand rejection of anything that touches EU-UK FoM)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5907625/Angela-Merkels-government-verge-collapse-handling-migration-crisis.html

mayonnaise

Matt_L wrote: »

None of which were made during the referendum...

Do you mean none of these claims were made during the official referendum campaign period of 15 April 2016 to 23 June 2016?

That's possible.

But utterly irrelevant.

buglawton

Crashy_Time wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5907625/Angela-Merkels-government-verge-collapse-handling-migration-crisis.html

That was in reply to my 'Norway' post.
Merkles issues is all around refugees arriving on EU shores and lack of an integrated policy.
Mays is all about squaring the circle with free all-comers immigration of EU nationals to the UK.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Matt_L wrote: »

None of which were made during the referendum...

Here is an excerpt from the official UK government White Paper published in March 2016, as to what would happen if the UK voted to leave.

If the result of the referendum were a vote to leave, we would seek the best possible balance of advantage for the UK.

However, regardless of the preferred outcome that the UK seeks, the precedents clearly indicate that we would need to make a number of trade-offs:

- in return for full access to the EUs free-trade Single Market in key UK industries, we would have to accept the free movement of people;

- full access to the Single Market would require us to continue to contribute to the EUs programmes and budget;

- an approach based on a Free Trade Agreement would not come with the same level of obligations, but would mean UK companies had reduced access to the Single Market in key sectors such as services (almost 80 per cent of the UK economy),1 and would face higher costs;

- in order to maintain the rights of UK citizens living, working and travelling in other EU countries, we would almost certainly have to accept reciprocal arrangements for their citizens in the UK.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/504661/Alternatives_to_membership_possible_models_for_the_UK_outside_the_EU_Accessible.pdf

The official UK government position before the referendum was that if we voted to leave, the government would then choose the best possible balance between rights and responsibilities, and make compromises that may include accepting free movement of people in return for the access to the single market.

What individual campaigners or politicians may or may not have said is less relevant than the official government position which was laid out very clearly before the vote...