you are forgetting Cummings who has now admitted he doesnt know if it was a good idea or not.

Roll on Friday's Crypto?

Don't forget worzel wetherspoon now wants free movement of bar staff from the EU.

None of the so called "leaders" of Brexit team ever believed in Brexit. they were in there for either financial gain or political gain. 

The only ones who genuinely believed in Brexit were the poor sods who were sold the fig that their woes are because of the EU and the eastern europeans - cause they speak funny. 

I think there were a few particularly stupid backbench Toby  MPs who genuinely believed in Brexit, but they are too stupid even for this government of all the stupids so have skulked back to the shadows.

It's obvious from looking at historic TV interviews/debates that, as with the French Revolution and perhaps most revolutions, the Brexiteers and the media moved things on a trajectory towards more extreme outcomes. If you look at 2015 or pre-referendum 2016 you can find plenty of Conservative brexiteers saying "of course we don't want to leave the single market", we just want a different relationship with Europe. The problem was that once the referendum vote had happened people were polarised into the extremes of leave and remain. If Cameron had not been such a coward and resigned, I am sure that he could had negotiated a deal that would have kept UK in the single market (with free movement, albeit some ratchet clause on free movement of people) and participating in a lot of EU organisations, while formally outside the EU. May did not have the IQ or the standing to negotiate and sell such a deal, and I don't think she had the inclination to do so in any case.

I'm a remainer but I can recognise that many of the issues that brexiteers identified were real issues affecting real people. My answer would be that all of those issues could be addressed without needing to leave the EU and that leaving the EU was a bit of a cop out. It was like Alexander cutting the Gordian knot rather than trying to untangle it. Fixing the issues while being an EU member would have been harder work but the results would have been better and would not have involved all of the downsides of leaving the UK. The remainers seemed to say only that the issues did not exist or were exaggerated. The Labour Party was a particular problem because the changes that would be made would have involved things like stopping Government funding subsidising low paid jobs with the result that hundreds of thousands of EU migrants were working and living in UK while being a net drain on the exchequer. .

I dont agree - staying in the single market was clearly better than this clusterfvck but equally clearly offered no advantages and only disadvantages over staying in the EU, we would still obey all the rules but have less say in them.  It was a nonsense.

May did not have the IQ or the standing to negotiate and sell such a deal, and I don't think she had the inclination to do so in any case

That is a bit harsh. She wasn't actually being instructed by her party to do that. You're saying she failed to get a deal that would have kept UK in the single market (with free movement, albeit some ratchet clause on free movement of people) and participating in a lot of EU organisations, while formally outside the EU because she was too thick to do so.  The ERG were in control at that point and it was just pitiful. 

staying in the single market was clearly better than this clusterfvck but equally clearly offered no advantages and only disadvantages over staying in the EU, we would still obey all the rules but have less say in them.  It was a nonsense.

@Guy  How much say did UK have re single market rules in the EU?  Virtually none. There were 28 EU member states. For single market matters it's all qualified majority voting so anything proposed by the Commission can only be blocked if either (i) 45% of the member states or (ii) at least four member states representing at least 35% of the EU population vote against. The biggest influence the UK had was the UK-appointed commissioner on the Commission, but as one of 28 commissioners that's not very much. Other member states know that influence on these things is a matter of diplomatic lobbying, etc. There is a trade off between being in the single market and not having to deal with EU activities in other areas, e.g. economic and monetary policy (where the UK had an opt-out anyway). The UK would be in a position to leverage UK-EU cooperation in areas outside of the single market against single market rule changes not messing it around (of course EU would also be able to leverage). 

The UK influence in the EU was far greater than just one of 27 states.  Why do you think the smaller countries were so desperate for the UK to stay to counter balance the German-France axis?  It’s negotiating position as a junior trading partner with the EU however is weak.

Why do you think the smaller countries were so desperate for the UK to stay to counter balance the German-France axis?

@Guy: I'm from one of those smaller countries. My wife is from another. As with so many things you write here, you just regurgitate superficial and incorrect detail that you've read in what passes for the media in the UK. What exactly was this UK influence on the single market to which you're referring as being so important to those countries?

I think there were a few particularly stupid backbench Toby  MPs who genuinely believed in Brexit, but they are too stupid even for this government of all the stupids so have skulked back to the shadows.

lol what gives you the right to label others as "stupid"? What's your IQ, genius?  

Agree with RC. DC massively underestimated the can of worms and then did the worst thing for the country in resigning. Ultimately the only "true" pro-Brexit positions from my perspective are that it transforms the country in a time horizon far greater than anything that can be predictable, or you just want foreigners out now. It also has to be borne in mind that any government at any time could have repealed the ECA, and if they had achievable short to medium term goals they would have used that. 

The biggest falsehood in all of this is "better deal". Nothing better than what we got was ever achievable. The EU can't give up the freedoms that lie at the core of its policies, and has no reason to give a relatively large state choosing to sod of (12 times larger than oft-cited Norway) some sweetheart deal on access. 

In terms of where the "real" political Brexiteers are now, at least from the Conservatives' perspective they were only ever needed to win the 2019 GE. Now that's done, JRM has been packed-off, and they are concentrating on blowing up what's left of Labour to ensure power for the next 3 terms at least. 

How much say did UK have re single market rules in the EU?  Virtually none.

im not 100% sure what you’re driving at here rob but whilst in the eu and single market the uk was allowed unprecedented exceptions that were generally for its benefit

most obviously we were allowed to stay outside the schengen area and exempted from the single currency

@feelingchill  The EU is not the same as the single market.  The single market (or internal market) is a subset of the EU, largely based around the four freedoms (free movement of goods, free movement of persons, freedom to provide services and free movement of capital). Or, to be even more specific, we could say that the single market is what the EEA member states agree to with the EU.  Other parts of the EU, such as the two that you mention, Schengen and the single currency, are nothing to do with the single market. Other parts would be justice and home affairs (where Denmark has an opt out although the UK did not) and agriculture and fisheries (which are not part of the EEA agreement and are probably the principal reasons why Norway and Iceland don't just go and join the EU).

For EU legislation and rule-making, different legislative processes and/or voting thresholds apply depending on what that legislation deals with. As I've noted, matters relating to the single market are done by qualified majority voting which means any individual member state has virtually no formal ability to block anything. It's incredibly rare for any single market legislation to come to a vote and be rejected partly because member state concerns are taken into account by the Commission in preparing it and partly because the member states rarely have particular issues.

People like Guy who say the UK could not be outside the EU but in the single market with no rule-making influence way overstate:

(i) the difference between the UK's influence when it was in the EU (virtually none) and the influence it would have if in the EEA outside the EU (also virtually none); and

(ii) the extent to which there are single market issues which the UK cares about and has a different position from a significant number of other EU member states.

Guy also confuses (i) smaller EU members preferring for the UK to stay in the EU and (ii) smaller EU members preferring for the UK to stay in the EU to influence single market rule-making. (ii) is nonsense. Just nonsense. 

Other parts of the EU, such as the two that you mention, Schengen and the single currency, are nothing to do with the single market.

yes i appreciate there are a lot of different ways to interact with the eu and the single market but i certainly wouldn’t agree with this

the schengen area is the natural extension of free movement of people; the euro the natural extension of free movement of capital 

the fact that the uk was granted exceptions to both whilst remaining in the single market (and not being kicked out to efta, for example)  shows that it did have significant influence on how the rules were applied to it (“virtually none” is mad)

@feelingchill  You're trying to link two things that are nothing to do with each other.

The UK secured opt outs from other parts of the EU that are not within the scope of the single market.

You can describe those parts of the EU as being natural extensions of the single market but for EU purposes those parts are completely different regimes from the single market:

(1) not all EU member states participate in those parts (e.g. Ireland and Cyprus not in Schengen; Denmark, Sweden, Poland, etc. not in eurozone) and

(2) those parts have different voting rules with much greater scope for individual member states to influence/block changes compared with single market rule-making.

The UK getting treaty opt outs from other areas says nothing about the UK's influence on single market rule-making. It's like someone being a member of a multi-sport club that covers hockey, rugby and golf, having only a soccer membership. The fact that they were able to opt out of the hockey and rugby membership says nothing regarding how much or how little influence their soccer membership gives them in how the soccer section of the club is run. 

Honestly, I'm quite surprised that I need to spell out this stuff.  Did you never study EU law?

"DC massively underestimated the can of worms..."

Maybe he didn't. He simply delivered what he was first hired to do by Michael Howard in 1993 to do in the first place. 

He delivered except he far exceeded the 1992 Tory Brexit group's wet dreams. 

Rob, you are one of these people that think that decisions are made in formal meetings arent you?

@Guy  Why don't you just address what I said?  It's such an English trait to start off like you are doing when one's ignorance gets exposed.

I have addressed what you have said, the formality of "EU law"  has very little to do with how decisions are actually made, which is to do power and influence and discussions in informal settings not formal decision making structures.  I don#t know what where you work, but you have probably noticed this in action.  International politics is no different.

@Guy  You're the person who said "we would still obey all the rules but have less say in them" because the UK would not be an EU member. Now you're suggesting I'm the one who is focused on decision-making at formal meetings. What's to stop the UK having influence as a single market member through informal meetings with other member states even though outside the EU's formal decision-making structures?  I think you are making my point for me.

Because when we were in the the EU we were a key financial contributor, we had significant expertise in various areas and we were also the the party the EU new they had to keep on side because we could be the thin end of the wedge that led to the EU breaking up (which is why, although brexiteers are incapable of seeing it, we were cut an awful lot of slack).  On the outside we are a junior trading partner.

Because when we were in the the EU we were a key financial contributor,

Do you realise that the UK would also need to be a financial contributor in order to be in the single market, just as Iceland and Norway are?

we had significant expertise in various areas

Please enlighten me on these areas on which the UK has particular expertise. I think you may over-estimate the regard that other countries have for this. It's noteworthy that for 20 years UK nationals were significant underrepresented in the staff of the EU institutions which suggests that they were not so indispensable.

we were also the the party the EU new they had to keep on side

Eh no, the UK was the person in the club with the relatively poor social skills that whines a lot but that everyone puts up with because they are basically harmless, their heart is in the right place, they pay their dues on time and they're not as big an ego as some other people. I don't think anyone outside delusional brexiteers ever thought that the UK leaving the EU would lead to its break-up. Just like now nobody thinks that Poland or Hungary being kicked out of the EU will lead to its break up. 

I'm fascinated by the fact that even though you're obviously a remainer, you share so many of the brexiteer delusions about the UK, the EU,  EU countries, etc. Have you ever lived for any period in any European country other than the UK?

Rob,  I dont think the UK is anything special, far from it, but the EU was basically set up as a club for Germany and France, first to stop them invading each other and second so that France would have its agriculture subsidised in exchange for agreeing no tariffs on German industrial goods.  As it grew the club changed obviously, but the UK provided a balance to it the basic motivations of the two powerful founders and tended to represent the wider interests of the more peripheral EU countries that wanted to integrate more slowly and had wider interests, in particular services, which played a minor part in the EEC prior to the UK joining (and ironically plays a minor part in the post Brexit deal - but that is just the stupidity of Brexit Britain)

The single market was largely a british idea to move away from the EEC being primarily about agricultural subsidies and free trade for goods.

That stupid ar$ehole Rishi Sunak is still a brexiteer through and through

really? I assumed he'd taken on the mantle of brexit for political expediency

@Guy  You're going off topic again. Maybe just answer the questions in my previous post.

As a reminder, the issue is whether the UK leaving the EU but remaining in the single market is a viable proposition with some downsides and some upsides. 

You said that it "offered no advantages and only disadvantages over staying in the EU, we would still obey all the rules but have less say in them".

I have explained that the UK's say in single market rules as an EU member is extremely limited. I also noted, although that was not something disputed, that in practice the UK has not really found anything material (as distinct from symbolic, e.g. imperial measures and bendy bananas) in the current single market set up with which it has an issue. We both agree that the real power of the UK and other countries is through leveraging other areas  and I think we both agree that such leverage is generally exercised most effectively through informal means and trading different areas against each other. 

If the UK wants to have an independent agricultural policy, fisheries policy or justice and home affairs policy, to give just three examples of things it is bound to by EU membership that are not part of the single market, then it can do so outside of the EU while still being in the single market. (Although, I think most justice and home affairs matters at an EU level still require unanimity in many cases.) 

You can say that it would be better for the UK to be in the EU than to have such position, but there is nothing inherently wrong with having a view that single market membership is worthwhile but the entire package of EU membership is not.  I note that in practice the single market standards etc. are going to need to be complied with my exporters of goods or services from the UK to the EU (not just regulatory standards but, for example, GDPR for providers of services) so the UK still needs to obey them even if not in the EU.

I completely understand why remainers pushed the second referendum rather than single market membership but it was a risky gamble and they lost at the first hurdle. Even if they had won at the first hurdle they could very well have lost the subsequent referendum. Part of the remainer strategy was to shoot down single market membership with the line that it involved having to accept EU rules without having a say in setting them, but that was always a misleading and political line. Unfortunately, that line is now out there in the public and the consequence is that now single market membership cannot happen for some time. 

Single market membership is a bad deal, but as you cannot debate without constantly playing the man rather than the ball, I think I shall bow out.

sunak’s brexit position is based on financial self-interest on the assumption that cutting down trade with europe will force the uk to pivot trade towards other jurisdictions, for the benefit of those other jurisdictions’ companies such as infosys

rob cannon’s talking an awful lot of shit again isn’t he

rob - i still don’t understand the point you’re making

is it that the uk had a lot of political power within the eu but not specifically on single market directives eg about qualified workers?

because i would argue that all the stuff you’re saying is nothing to do with the single market, such as maastricht and amsterdam, is in fact inextricably tied to the single market as a political project

it just seems obtuse to say eg the capital markets union has nothing to do with the single market and therefore our influence on it pre-brexit was completely separate from our membership of the internal market

You know Rob is talking shite when the great wall of text appears.

I am getting my @rse handed to me what should I do? I know, just write moaarrrr!!! The person who writes the most always wins every argument right? Hotblack is a winner yeah? I mean, he can afford dope.

@feelingchill

Depending on the subject matter (competence in EUspeak) the balance of power between the EU as an entity and the national member states is different. There are a bunch of factors that bear on that including (non-exhaustive list) (i) which entity(ies) can initiate legislation, (ii) how the legislation is voted on and (iii) whether the legislation is in the form of directives or regulations.

So, for example, on justice and home affairs the individual member states have more power because legislation is more in the form of directives than regulations and the voting needs to be unanimous or by higher majority.  By contrast, on single market matters the legislation is initiated by the European Commission, qualified majority voting applies and the legislation is in the form of regulations. The less any individual member state has a say the more the decision-making by Brussels is relevant. EEA membership provides for meetings directly between Brussels and EEA members. I have no doubt that the UK, because of the size of its economy and population, available resource (i.e. civil service/academic) and perhaps also English language fluency, would have more influence on single market matters through those meetings as a non-EU but single market member than Slovenia or Cyprus have through being an EU member.

The EU has 28 member states. The influence of say, Germany, is greater than the influence of say Malta. However, the influence of any one member state is very limited on single market measures (limited on other measures too, but not so limited as more decision making involves national carve-ups between member state representatives, e.g. as regards how fishing quotes or milk quotas are divided up). As an example, the UK was not happy that it has to pay child benefit to EU migrants working in the UK whose children are not in the UK. However, the UK was not the only country unhappy over that - several others were also. But even then they could not get a majority for changing it.

Maastricht and Amsterdam are not good terms to use because they each treaty did a lot of different things, including as regards single market, e.g. introducing qualified majority voting, i.e. they did not just add things on they rewrote what was there. Capital markets union is part of the single market. However, the Eurozone is not part of the single market. In many ways being in the single market but not in the Eurozone was a great win for the UK. Do you understand the distinction?

Picking up on capital markets union by way of example, if the UK were in the single market but not the EU it would be bound by EU capital markets rules. However, those rules would also have to be applied by the other EU and EEA member states on an equal basis and there would be equal access between UK and EU. That would make for the EU deliberately to devise capital markets rules so as to deliberately prejudice the UK relative to the EU. Yes, the EU rules might not suit the UK perfectly, but then they did not even when the UK was an EU member. Yes, the UK might not have much influence into how the rules are formulated but then it did not have so much even when it was an EU member and, as Guy has noted (and I have agreed with) influence in these cases is exercised more informally than formally and most of those informal means are just as available to the UK as a non-EU single market member than as an EU member.

Q.E.M.F.D.

In many ways being in the single market but not in the Eurozone was a great win for the UK. Do you understand the distinction?

yes this is the point i am making

is your point that the uk should aim to join the single market but not the eu, and you therefore believe that they would not have to join schengen or the eurozone (because they are separate entities that have nothing to do with the single market)?

i don’t think that reflects the reality of the situation, which is that all these things are interlinked (in the eu’s mind at least) and frankly we had the best of all worlds prior to leaving the eu (due in great measure to our massive influence within it)

Corbyn was a true brexiteer. 

EEA membership provides for meetings directly between Brussels and EEA members. I have no doubt that the UK, because of the size of its economy and population, available resource (i.e. civil service/academic) and perhaps also English language fluency, would have more influence on single market matters through those meetings as a non-EU but single market member than Slovenia or Cyprus have through being an EU member.

is this your point?

you can’t honestly believe the uk would have greater influence as an eea member than it did before brexit (when it had “virtually no influence” on single market matters, in your view)?

right, who has the most flags?

@feelingchill

we had the best of all worlds prior to leaving the eu

I agree with that. However, I don't agree that the UK had a "massive influence within" the EU prior to leaving. In the 1980s and 90s perhaps.  EU expansion to 28 member states reduced every individual country's influence but the UK's geographic location on the western side of the EU meant that it's influence was reduced more than say Germany and Italy. The percentage of British nationals in EU institutions was significantly below the UK's share of the EU population. 

your point that the uk should aim to join the single market but not the eu, and you therefore believe that they would not have to join schengen or the eurozone (because they are separate entities that have nothing to do with the single market)

My point is that it is a rational position to say that the UK should be in the single market but not the EU because the costs/benefits of being in the single market is more favourable to the UK but the costs/benefit of being part of the EU for other purposes is less favourable to the UK. I don't agree with that, but I don't think it's a wholly unreasonable position. Even the most ardent remainers seem to recognise that single market membership is critical and some other aspects of the EU like fisheries policy and common agricultural policy are more necessary evils.

i don’t think that reflects the reality of the situation, which is that all these things are interlinked (in the eu’s mind at least) 

Now we come to where we disagree. We know that Ireland is an EU member but has an opt out from Schengen. We know that Denmark, Sweden and Poland are EU members but not in the Eurozone and will never need to be if they don't want to (because a condition of Eurozone membership is European Exchange Rate Mechanism membership and participation in that is voluntary). We also know that Iceland and Norway are members of the European Economic Area and therefore of the single market. We know that Turkey has a customs union with the EU for non-agricultural goods. And Switzerland has lots of deals with the EU that equate to single market and customs union. So these things cannot be so interlinked as you suggest.

The EU has said that it would never again take the approach it has taken with Switzerland because it's been a nightmare agreeing lots of bilateral agreements. However, the EU never at any time post the Brexit referendum suggested that it would not accept the UK being part of the European Economic Area and a member of the single market. 

you can’t honestly believe the uk would have greater influence as an eea member than it did before brexit (when it had “virtually no influence” on single market matters, in your view)?

I did not say this. Read again what I said:

I have no doubt that the UK, because of the size of its economy and population, available resource (i.e. civil service/academic) and perhaps also English language fluency, would have more influence on single market matters through those meetings as a non-EU but single market member than Slovenia or Cyprus have through being an EU member.

Maybe "virtually no influence" was overstating it. However, my point is that when people talk about influence of individual EU member states on single market matters the level is very limited in the first place and to the extent it applies is exercised through informal means that are still available to the UK even if in the single market but not in the EU and, indeed the UK's influence would still be greater than smaller member states that are EU members.

I want the UK's economy to crumble so I can return, buy up half the island and assert my droit du seigneur

On and on and on he drones. When will he stop? Nobody knows.