Goodness. Never heard of Jo Cox but that's awful. It happened with Stephen Timms a few years ago. Crazy to be relatng this to the referendum at this stage.
Given the campaign by Vote Leave and the public statements of Gove, Boris and other leading figures, I don't think there's any realistic chance of us applying for an EEA or EEA-style deal, even if one were on offer, which is looking increasingly unlikely.
Oh, there's every chance. If it's 51/49 to Leave there won't be much of a mandate to do much else.
Then we'll pull the emergency brake until 2020. General election.
Is Kate Hoey still a part of the Farage Leave campaign? If so, she should either immediately disown that poster or be expelled from the Labour party. That poster is among the most disgusting I have ever seen. Absolutely repulsive. What a revolting man Nigel Farage is, standing there grinning in front of something that demonises people fleeing from mass-murdering psychopaths.
I looked at it and winced. Then looked at it again and thought back over so many conversations with voters both during the GE campaign and more recently. And concluded the poster probably gets it right for its audience.
Farage and UKIP do what they want. On the issue about all this outrage from REMAINers, presumably this is reason number 201 from REMAIN as to why they going to win?
No, Remain will lose. And there is a proper and important discussion to be had about immigration. But the racism and xenophobia that Farage panders to has no part in it. Like Trump, Farage has thrown the dogwhistle away.
I'm in a quandary like SeanT in some ways.
I've been a Brexiteer because I worry about democracy and sovereignty (or lack of) immigration has never been a concern for me and finding myself on the same side of the debate as Farage and UKIP is very uncomfortable... In normal circumstances I rate these people as complete nut cases and would be ashamed to be associated with them as I'm sure has been noted over the years
This is the great pity of Cameron's lost renegotiation opportunity. Because of his lamentable failure to get a genuine deal that reforms our relationship with with the EU I've been forced to the same side as Farage... A place I'm very uncomfortable to be it must be said.
Simply ignore Farage - he's not even a MP, if we vote Brexit - he'll be out of that MEP job too. Think of Gisela and Hoey and Leadsom. They're the mainstream.
The Leave campaign is cross -party, In the event of Leave will Kate Hoey and Gisela Stuart be given a role??
Given the campaign by Vote Leave and the public statements of Gove, Boris and other leading figures, I don't think there's any realistic chance of us applying for an EEA or EEA-style deal, even if one were on offer, which is looking increasingly unlikely.
Why do you say EFTA membership is looking increasingly unlikely to be offered? In fact all the recent statements from politicians in places like Norway and Iceland have been more favourable.
EFTA membership would probably not be a problem. But EFTA membership wouldn't of itself give us access to the Single Market, we'd need to negotiate joining the EEA as a non-EU member (i.e. the opposite side of the agreement from our current position). That, despite your repeated assertions to the contrary, will clearly require the consent of the other 27 EU states.
The reason I think it's unlikely to be on offer is basically because of the comments by Wolfgang Schäuble and Emmanuel Macron. I think the Huffington Post view of the politics of this is basically right.
It's academic anyway, we won't be applying for it.
Besides I still believe the most likely result is EFTA membership.
Despite the fact that VoteLeave have explicitly rejected those options.
I am fairly confident that post-Brexit former Remainers will compromise with moderate Leavers for a consensus on the EEA, on the grounds it was the least of the evils. Leave were lying through their teeth about a ton of other things, why should they care about retaining freedom of movement when they said they would reduce immigration?
Whether the other players will accept the UK signing up to the EEA is open IMHO. It would be a classic EU "extend and pretend" move. OTOH the EU generally thinks the arrangement with Switzerland was a mistake, which they may be conscious of not repeating. Also Norway has said categorically that the EEA won't work for the UK. They are the main current player on the EFTA side.
AS I have said numerous times before we would not be 'signing up' to EEA membership as we are already a member and an independent signatory to the original treaty.
The UK is part of the EEA by dint of being also member of the EU. If the UK loses its EU membership it will have to join EFTA to continue with the EEA. There are important questions of jurisdiction. Now could the EU block re-accession to the EEA via EFTA? (Leaving aside the question of whether EFTA member Norway would also do the same). Technically EFTA membership isn't under the control of the EU but I it would be foolish to assume they can't stop us getting into the EEA
I don't think Gordon or McIRA thought that far ahead.
It's quite something to see senior Labour people campaigning in effect for the continuation of the careers of a pair of Tories they otherwise hate. I don't know how that is meant to enthuse Labour Remainers.
Is Kate Hoey still a part of the Farage Leave campaign? If so, she should either immediately disown that poster or be expelled from the Labour party. That poster is among the most disgusting I have ever seen. Absolutely repulsive. What a revolting man Nigel Farage is, standing there grinning in front of something that demonises people fleeing from mass-murdering psychopaths.
I looked at it and winced. Then looked at it again and thought back over so many conversations with voters both during the GE campaign and more recently. And concluded the poster probably gets it right for its audience.
Farage and UKIP do what they want. On the issue about all this outrage from REMAINers, presumably this is reason number 201 from REMAIN as to why they going to win?
No, Remain will lose. And there is a proper and important discussion to be had about immigration. But the racism and xenophobia that Farage panders to has no part in it. Like Trump, Farage has thrown the dogwhistle away.
I'm in a quandary like SeanT in some ways.
I've been a Brexiteer because I worry about democracy and sovereignty (or lack of) immigration has never been a concern for me and finding myself on the same side of the debate as Farage and UKIP is very uncomfortable... In normal circumstances I rate these people as complete nut cases and would be ashamed to be associated with them as I'm sure has been noted over the years
This is the great pity of Cameron's lost renegotiation opportunity. Because of his lamentable failure to get a genuine deal that reforms our relationship with with the EU I've been forced to the same side as Farage... A place I'm very uncomfortable to be it must be said.
Simply ignore Farage - he's not even a MP, if we vote Brexit - he'll be out of that MEP job too. Think of Gisela and Hoey and Leadsom. They're the mainstream.
The Leave campaign is cross -party, In the event of Leave will Kate Hoey and Gisela Stuart be given a role??
And how will that go down with the PLP??
I'd certainly hope Gisela was given a role in negotiations. It's her long suit apparently - background in EU law and spent 18months dealing with last big EU round.
@GIN1138 I have made it clear since I first came off the fence for Remain that I did so not out of any love for Remain but because it was clear that Leave was going to be led in the wrong direction by the wrong people. In other words, Leave was going to result in an inferior outcome to Remain.
The thought of Lord Farage sitting in the Cabinet after standing in front of that poster makes me shudder.
Me too. I don't think it will happen though. I bloody hope not.
Besides I still believe the most likely result is EFTA membership.
Despite the fact that VoteLeave have explicitly rejected those options.
I am fairly confident that post-Brexit former Remainers will compromise with moderate Leavers for a consensus on the EEA, on the grounds it was the least of the evils. Leave were lying through their teeth about a ton of other things, why should they care about retaining freedom of movement when they said they would reduce immigration?
Whether the other players will accept the UK signing up to the EEA is open IMHO. It would be a classic EU "extend and pretend" move. OTOH the EU generally thinks the arrangement with Switzerland was a mistake, which they may be conscious of not repeating. Also Norway has said categorically that the EEA won't work for the UK. They are the main current player on the EFTA side.
AS I have said numerous times before we would not be 'signing up' to EEA membership as we are already a member and an independent signatory to the original treaty.
The UK is part of the EEA by dint of being also member of the EU. If the UK loses its EU membership it will have to join EFTA to continue with the EEA. There are important questions of jurisdiction. Now could the EU block re-accession to the EEA via EFTA? (Leaving aside the question of whether EFTA member Norway would also do the same). Technically EFTA membership isn't under the control of the EU but I it would be foolish to assume they can't stop us getting into the EEA
No this misunderstands the way a treaty works. The UK will remain a signatory to the treaty and a member of the EEA as long as it does not breach the terms of the treaty. That means that it must either be a member of the EU or EFTA. Your question about EFTA not wanting us is valid but given recent statements seems very unlikely. But so long as we do join EFTA there is nothing the EU can do because we would not have actually left the EEA.
Given the campaign by Vote Leave and the public statements of Gove, Boris and other leading figures, I don't think there's any realistic chance of us applying for an EEA or EEA-style deal, even if one were on offer, which is looking increasingly unlikely.
Oh, there's every chance. If it's 51/49 to Leave there won't be much of a mandate to do much else.
Then we'll pull the emergency brake until 2020. General election.
Immediately pulling emergency measures to get round the core principle (Article 1 of the EEA Treaty) of free movement would be a huge act of bad faith. It would kill any single market arrangement with the EU stone dead.
Given the campaign by Vote Leave and the public statements of Gove, Boris and other leading figures, I don't think there's any realistic chance of us applying for an EEA or EEA-style deal, even if one were on offer, which is looking increasingly unlikely.
Why do you say EFTA membership is looking increasingly unlikely to be offered? In fact all the recent statements from politicians in places like Norway and Iceland have been more favourable.
EFTA membership would probably not be a problem. But EFTA membership wouldn't of itself give us access to the Single Market, we'd need to negotiate joining the EEA as a non-EU member (i.e. the opposite side of the agreement from our current position). That, despite your repeated assertions to the contrary, will clearly require the consent of the other 27 EU states.
The reason I think it's unlikely to be on offer is basically because of the comments by Wolfgang Schäuble and Emmanuel Macron. I think the Huffington Post view of the politics of this is basically right.
It's academic anyway, we won't be applying for it.
No we would not. That is absolutely wrong as I have pointed out to you many times before. The treaty stands and we would remain signatories. The only way the EU could prevent it is by breaching or withdrawing from the treaty entirely.
The important thing is that people react gracefully to the result, whatever it may be, and behave in a conciliatory and positive manner and make whatever we decide work in the most effective manner.
Ye Gods, that's awful. Let's hope they can save her.
Shot and stabbed twice...
Eye witness said he thought the guy may have had a feud with her. Apparently she's had a lot of abuse for nominating Corbyn, then voting for Liz - and written about how much she regretted the Corbyn decision.
No we would not. That is absolutely wrong as I have pointed out to you many times before. The treaty stands and we would remain signatories. The only way the EU could prevent it is by breaching or withdrawing from the treaty entirely.
LOL, I love the way that you think that 'Richard Tyndall pointing something out' is decisive proof!
No we would not. That is absolutely wrong as I have pointed out to you many times before. The treaty stands and we would remain signatories. The only way the EU could prevent it is by breaching or withdrawing from the treaty entirely.
LOL, I love the way that you think that 'Richard Tyndall pointing something out' is decisive proof!
It's decisive proof that it's not "clearly" false...
Besides I still believe the most likely result is EFTA membership.
Despite the fact that VoteLeave have explicitly rejected those options.
I am fairly confident that post-Brexit former Remainers will compromise with moderate Leavers for a consensus on the EEA, on the grounds it was the least of the evils. Leave were lying through their teeth about a ton of other things, why should they care about retaining freedom of movement when they said they would reduce immigration?
Whether the other players will accept the UK signing up to the EEA is open IMHO. It would be a classic EU "extend and pretend" move. OTOH the EU generally thinks the arrangement with Switzerland was a mistake, which they may be conscious of not repeating. Also Norway has said categorically that the EEA won't work for the UK. They are the main current player on the EFTA side.
AS I have said numerous times before we would not be 'signing up' to EEA membership as we are already a member and an independent signatory to the original treaty.
The UK is part of the EEA by dint of being also member of the EU. If the UK loses its EU membership it will have to join EFTA to continue with the EEA. There are important questions of jurisdiction. Now could the EU block re-accession to the EEA via EFTA? (Leaving aside the question of whether EFTA member Norway would also do the same). Technically EFTA membership isn't under the control of the EU but I it would be foolish to assume they can't stop us getting into the EEA
No this misunderstands the way a treaty works. The UK will remain a signatory to the treaty and a member of the EEA as long as it does not breach the terms of the treaty. That means that it must either be a member of the EU or EFTA. Your question about EFTA not wanting us is valid but given recent statements seems very unlikely. But so long as we do join EFTA there is nothing the EU can do because we would not have actually left the EEA.
I really don't think this is correct. An essential aspect of the EEA is supervision and jurisdiction. If parties are not subject to the rules and institutions of the EU, they have to be subject to the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court.
@GIN1138 I have made it clear since I first came off the fence for Remain that I did so not out of any love for Remain but because it was clear that Leave was going to be led in the wrong direction by the wrong people. In other words, Leave was going to result in an inferior outcome to Remain.
The thought of Lord Farage sitting in the Cabinet after standing in front of that poster makes me shudder.
Me too. I don't think it will happen though. I bloody hope not.
It was put into the media by a "friend of Farage", which is a good sign it was a complete fabrication by Farage to try to force Boris's hand should he become PM.
No we would not. That is absolutely wrong as I have pointed out to you many times before. The treaty stands and we would remain signatories. The only way the EU could prevent it is by breaching or withdrawing from the treaty entirely.
LOL, I love the way that you think that 'Richard Tyndall pointing something out' is decisive proof!
It's decisive proof that it's not "clearly" false...
Ye Gods, that's awful. Let's hope they can save her.
Shot and stabbed twice...
Eye witness said he thought the guy may have had a feud with her. Apparently she's had a lot of abuse for nominating Corbyn, then voting for Liz - and written about how much she regretted the Corbyn decision.
Besides I still believe the most likely result is EFTA membership.
Despite the fact that VoteLeave have explicitly rejected those options.
I am fairly confident that post-Brexit former Remainers will compromise with moderate Leavers for a consensus on the EEA, on the grounds it was the least of the evils. Leave were lying through their teeth about a ton of other things, why should they care about retaining freedom of movement when they said they would reduce immigration?
Whether the other players will accept the UK signing up to the EEA is open IMHO. It would be a classic EU "extend and pretend" move. OTOH the EU generally thinks the arrangement with Switzerland was a mistake, which they may be conscious of not repeating. Also Norway has said categorically that the EEA won't work for the UK. They are the main current player on the EFTA side.
AS I have said numerous times before we would not be 'signing up' to EEA membership as we are already a member and an independent signatory to the original treaty.
The UK is part of the EEA by dint of being also member of the EU. If the UK loses its EU membership it will have to join EFTA to continue with the EEA. There are important questions of jurisdiction. Now could the EU block re-accession to the EEA via EFTA? (Leaving aside the question of whether EFTA member Norway would also do the same). Technically EFTA membership isn't under the control of the EU but I it would be foolish to assume they can't stop us getting into the EEA
No this misunderstands the way a treaty works. The UK will remain a signatory to the treaty and a member of the EEA as long as it does not breach the terms of the treaty. That means that it must either be a member of the EU or EFTA. Your question about EFTA not wanting us is valid but given recent statements seems very unlikely. But so long as we do join EFTA there is nothing the EU can do because we would not have actually left the EEA.
I really don't think this is correct. An essential aspect of the EEA is supervision and jurisdiction. If parties are not subject to the rules and institutions of the EU, they have to be subject to the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court.
That is exactly what I have been saying, If we did not join EFTA we would be in breach of the treaty terms and would be considered to have left the EEA. But as long as we join EFTA from the EU we will remain a member of the EEA>
Witness: Gun went off twice after MP stepped into row between two men Witness Hithem Ben Abdallah, 56, was in the cafe next door to the library shortly after 1pm when he heard screaming and went outside.
He said: "There was a guy who was being very brave and another guy with a white baseball cap who he was trying to control and the man in the baseball cap suddenly pulled a gun from his bag."
After a brief scuffle, he said the man stepped back and the MP became involved.
He added: "He was fighting with her and wrestling with her and then the gun went off twice and then she fell between two cars and I came and saw her bleeding on the floor."
After around 15 minutes, the shop owner said emergency services arrived and tended to her with a drip.
Ms Cox's assistant confirmed she had been attacked and said he was trying to get more information from police at the scene.
Here's a moral dilemma, perhaps pb-ers can help me
I am a convinced LEAVER. I have very carefully weighed everything, and have - with great reluctance, and some trepidation - decided that OUT is best for my country, long term. Better for my kids.
I really really wanted Cameron to deliver some proper reform, something close to his Bloomberg aspirations, but he didn't. He came nowhere near. He failed, miserably.
That said, I have lots of friends who are now panicking, some of them are outright terrified. People poorer than me, who won't be able to endure recession or house price falls, the way I can. People worried their jobs will go.
These are people I love. I love my friends. I am about to do something that will very possibly harm them.
What do I do? What is the moral course of action?
I have had a few gos at trying to answer your question, but since I consider REMAIN to be the moral course of action I can't answer your question without steering you to that verdict, and I sense you would not find that helpful.
So in the end all I can give you is: do as you consider right for yourself and your family, be neither cruel nor cowardly, and hope that your decision (whatever it is) will be one that you can live with thereafter. I hope that that is sufficient and good luck with whatever you decide.
Perhaps Sean should consider just why it is that his friends are terrified. It is because there has been a tsunami of threats and warnings from Cameron and Osborne. This is the same Cameron who only a few months back was saying that if he did not get a good deal from the EU he might recommend us leaving. He also implied that the UK could manage quite well outside of the EU. If what Cameron is now saying is what he truly believes, why did he not refuse to have this referendum? Why did he not say to the electorate..."It would be catastrophic if we were to leave, and therefore I cannot allow you to even to consider it. We must stay in the EU for the rest of time. This disgusting barrage of threats has belittled the position of the Prime Minister. It is he ( and his lackeys) who are responsible for the fear in so many people.
I believe Sean should not worry about voting Leave. The swing back to Remain will ensure a comfortable victory for them.
What the hell possesses humanbeings to do things like this.
Passions are inflamed on both sides, I've encountered more anger/rudeness in this referendum than I've encountered in all the others campaigns I've been involved before combined.
I am fairly confident that post-Brexit former Remainers will compromise with moderate Leavers for a consensus on the EEA, on the grounds it was the least of the evils. Leave were lying through their teeth about a ton of other things, why should they care about retaining freedom of movement when they said they would reduce immigration?
Whether the other players will accept the UK signing up to the EEA is open IMHO. It would be a classic EU "extend and pretend" move. OTOH the EU generally thinks the arrangement with Switzerland was a mistake, which they may be conscious of not repeating. Also Norway has said categorically that the EEA won't work for the UK. They are the main current player on the EFTA side.
AS I have said numerous times before we would not be 'signing up' to EEA membership as we are already a member and an independent signatory to the original treaty.
The UK is part of the EEA by dint of being also member of the EU. If the UK loses its EU membership it will have to join EFTA to continue with the EEA. There are important questions of jurisdiction. Now could the EU block re-accession to the EEA via EFTA? (Leaving aside the question of whether EFTA member Norway would also do the same). Technically EFTA membership isn't under the control of the EU but I it would be foolish to assume they can't stop us getting into the EEA
No this misunderstands the way a treaty works. The UK will remain a signatory to the treaty and a member of the EEA as long as it does not breach the terms of the treaty. That means that it must either be a member of the EU or EFTA. Your question about EFTA not wanting us is valid but given recent statements seems very unlikely. But so long as we do join EFTA there is nothing the EU can do because we would not have actually left the EEA.
I really don't think this is correct. An essential aspect of the EEA is supervision and jurisdiction. If parties are not subject to the rules and institutions of the EU, they have to be subject to the EFTA Surveillance Authority and the EFTA Court.
That is exactly what I have been saying, If we did not join EFTA we would be in breach of the treaty terms and would be considered to have left the EEA. But as long as we join EFTA from the EU we will remain a member of the EEA>
In practice it would be a new arrangement and therefore, in practice, we would need the agreement of the other parties. There will be documents to sign and because of a risk of parties not signing them even when normally it would be routine, it would be foolish not to get everyone on board.
No we would not. That is absolutely wrong as I have pointed out to you many times before. The treaty stands and we would remain signatories. The only way the EU could prevent it is by breaching or withdrawing from the treaty entirely.
LOL, I love the way that you think that 'Richard Tyndall pointing something out' is decisive proof!
That's an outright LIE. Vote Leave have tried to keep their utmost distance away from him and were furious he was invited onto ITV. Considering you whine about what you call lying what makes you think you can get away with this LIE?
Post the official statement from Vote Leave, or Kate Hoey, or Boris, or Gove, distancing themselves from his poster launch this morning.
Otherwise keep quiet.
Vote Leave have nothing to do with this poster. But here's some statements you lying ignorant fool.
No we would not. That is absolutely wrong as I have pointed out to you many times before. The treaty stands and we would remain signatories. The only way the EU could prevent it is by breaching or withdrawing from the treaty entirely.
LOL, I love the way that you think that 'Richard Tyndall pointing something out' is decisive proof!
I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about this incident from early reports, the Madrid train bombings being an infamous example of how attributing a cause before the facts are truly known can be wrong.
Given the campaign by Vote Leave and the public statements of Gove, Boris and other leading figures, I don't think there's any realistic chance of us applying for an EEA or EEA-style deal, even if one were on offer, which is looking increasingly unlikely.
Oh, there's every chance. If it's 51/49 to Leave there won't be much of a mandate to do much else.
Then we'll pull the emergency brake until 2020. General election.
Immediately pulling emergency measures to get round the core principle (Article 1 of the EEA Treaty) of free movement would be a huge act of bad faith. It would kill any single market arrangement with the EU stone dead.
I agree. I am not happy that this suggestion has emerged over the last few weeks and am not clear what the basis for it is. I always thought Richard N's assertion was correct that as far as freedom of movement is concerned there is not difference between the EU and EEA.
I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about this incident from early reports, the Madrid train bombings being an infamous example of how attributing a cause before the facts are truly known can be wrong.
I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about this incident from early reports, the Madrid train bombings being an infamous example of how attributing a cause before the facts are truly known can be wrong.
...and caused a major backlash against the side that tried to make political capital out of claims that turned out to be false.
Why should that be? Are you suggesting that this was a premeditated attack on the MP; When eye witnesses say that she interposed herself on a private quarrel. Remain are really trying to beat Leave with any handy stick.
What the hell possesses humanbeings to do things like this.
Passions are inflamed on both sides, I've encountered more anger/rudeness in this referendum than I've encountered in all the others campaigns I've been involved before combined.
Indeed so. I received a lot of rudeness from the inevitably middle class remainers while canvassing last night. In politics having a thick skin is part of the job.
As for the poor Labour MP bad as the attack sounds I don't think the referendum will turn on that. These kind of people so often have a medical history.
No we would not. That is absolutely wrong as I have pointed out to you many times before. The treaty stands and we would remain signatories. The only way the EU could prevent it is by breaching or withdrawing from the treaty entirely.
LOL, I love the way that you think that 'Richard Tyndall pointing something out' is decisive proof!
Nope. The Treaties themselves are proof.
You could have some fun drafting the clause to follow this one in the EFTA convention if we rejoined.
"Having regard to the successive withdrawals from the Convention by the Kingdom of Denmark and the United Kingdom on 1 January 1973; the Republic of Portugal on 1 January 1986; the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden on 1 January 1995"
Why should that be? Are you suggesting that this was a premeditated attack on the MP; When eye witnesses say that she interposed herself on a private quarrel. Remain are really trying to beat Leave with any handy stick.
No one should turn a tragedy into a political incident. Boris has suspended campaigning and I am sure REMAIN will do the same. It's just the decent thing.
No we would not. That is absolutely wrong as I have pointed out to you many times before. The treaty stands and we would remain signatories. The only way the EU could prevent it is by breaching or withdrawing from the treaty entirely.
LOL, I love the way that you think that 'Richard Tyndall pointing something out' is decisive proof!
Nope. The Treaties themselves are proof.
You could have some fun drafting the clause to follow this one in the EFTA convention if we rejoined.
"Having regard to the successive withdrawals from the Convention by the Kingdom of Denmark and the United Kingdom on 1 January 1973; the Republic of Portugal on 1 January 1986; the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden on 1 January 1995"
What the hell possesses humanbeings to do things like this.
Passions are inflamed on both sides, I've encountered more anger/rudeness in this referendum than I've encountered in all the others campaigns I've been involved before combined.
Indeed so. I received a lot of rudeness from the inevitably middle class remainers while canvassing last night. In politics having a thick skin is part of the job.
As for the poor Labour MP bad as the attack sounds I don't think the referendum will turn on that. These kind of people so often have a medical history.
Anyone wandering around Leeds with a pistol is in a different mind-space to the vast majority...
Why should that be? Are you suggesting that this was a premeditated attack on the MP; When eye witnesses say that she interposed herself on a private quarrel. Remain are really trying to beat Leave with any handy stick.
Lets wait for the full facts. If Remain try to jump in and make political capital for them it would be game over for them.
Besides I still believe the most likely result is EFTA membership.
Despite the fact that VoteLeave have explicitly rejected those options.
I am fairly confident that post-Brexit former Remainers will compromise with moderate Leavers for a consensus on the EEA, on the grounds it was the least of the evils. Leave were lying through their teeth about a ton of other things, why should they care about retaining freedom of movement when they said they would reduce immigration?
Whether the other players will accept the UK signing up to the EEA is open IMHO. It would be a classic EU "extend and pretend" move. OTOH the EU generally thinks the arrangement with Switzerland was a mistake, which they may be conscious of not repeating. Also Norway has said categorically that the EEA won't work for the UK. They are the main current player on the EFTA side.
AS I have said numerous times before we would not be 'signing up' to EEA membership as we are already a member and an independent signatory to the original treaty.
The UK is part of the EEA by dint of being also member of the EU. If the UK loses its EU membership it will have to join EFTA to continue with the EEA. There are important questions of jurisdiction. Now could the EU block re-accession to the EEA via EFTA? (Leaving aside the question of whether EFTA member Norway would also do the same). Technically EFTA membership isn't under the control of the EU but I it would be foolish to assume they can't stop us getting into the EEA
1. While the treaty uses the words "EFTA states" a lot, it specifically defines that term to mean "Norway, Iceland and Litchenstein". 2. The treaty contains specific provisions regarding new members of the EU becoming automatically party to the agreement. There is no corresponding text regarding new members of EFTA.
Based on this, I'm now fairly certain that us joining EFTA would not automatically lead to us being a member of the EEA.
Perhaps one of our resident lawyers could have a read and see if my interpretation is correct.
No we would not. That is absolutely wrong as I have pointed out to you many times before. The treaty stands and we would remain signatories. The only way the EU could prevent it is by breaching or withdrawing from the treaty entirely.
LOL, I love the way that you think that 'Richard Tyndall pointing something out' is decisive proof!
Nope. The Treaties themselves are proof.
You could have some fun drafting the clause to follow this one in the EFTA convention if we rejoined.
"Having regard to the successive withdrawals from the Convention by the Kingdom of Denmark and the United Kingdom on 1 January 1973; the Republic of Portugal on 1 January 1986; the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden on 1 January 1995"
Wouldn't you just love to be the one who drafted it to say
"And the return of the United Kingdom on 1 January 2018 because they can't make their bloody minds up. " :-)
Comments
Then we'll pull the emergency brake until 2020. General election.
Let's hope she's going to be OK.
And how will that go down with the PLP??
The reason I think it's unlikely to be on offer is basically because of the comments by Wolfgang Schäuble and Emmanuel Macron. I think the Huffington Post view of the politics of this is basically right.
It's academic anyway, we won't be applying for it.
Racists, terrorist sympathisers, anti-semites, homophobes.
The important thing is that people react gracefully to the result, whatever it may be, and behave in a conciliatory and positive manner and make whatever we decide work in the most effective manner.
Witness: Gun went off twice after MP stepped into row between two men
Witness Hithem Ben Abdallah, 56, was in the cafe next door to the library shortly after 1pm when he heard screaming and went outside.
He said: "There was a guy who was being very brave and another guy with a white baseball cap who he was trying to control and the man in the baseball cap suddenly pulled a gun from his bag."
After a brief scuffle, he said the man stepped back and the MP became involved.
He added: "He was fighting with her and wrestling with her and then the gun went off twice and then she fell between two cars and I came and saw her bleeding on the floor."
After around 15 minutes, the shop owner said emergency services arrived and tended to her with a drip.
Ms Cox's assistant confirmed she had been attacked and said he was trying to get more information from police at the scene.
If what Cameron is now saying is what he truly believes, why did he not refuse to have this referendum? Why did he not say to the electorate..."It would be catastrophic if we were to leave, and therefore I cannot allow you to even to consider it. We must stay in the EU for the rest of time.
This disgusting barrage of threats has belittled the position of the Prime Minister. It is he ( and his lackeys) who are responsible for the fear in so many people.
I believe Sean should not worry about voting Leave.
The swing back to Remain will ensure a comfortable victory for them.
@GuidoFawkes: UPDATE: 52 year old man arrested. @meaglemp says attacker shouted "Britain First"
https://t.co/aRJVtEae4O https://t.co/tzOlszzbPc
I hope so much she survives.
I feel sick.
Good move
Oh dear
This is very bad.
Hope she survives this.
As for the poor Labour MP bad as the attack sounds I don't think the referendum will turn on that. These kind of people so often have a medical history.
Woe betide anyone who tries to exploit this heinous act.
"Having regard to the successive withdrawals from the Convention by the Kingdom of Denmark and the United Kingdom on 1 January 1973; the Republic of Portugal on 1 January 1986; the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden on 1 January 1995"
Hope Jo Cox can make a full recovery.
My interpretation rests on two pillars:
1. While the treaty uses the words "EFTA states" a lot, it specifically defines that term to mean "Norway, Iceland and Litchenstein".
2. The treaty contains specific provisions regarding new members of the EU becoming automatically party to the agreement. There is no corresponding text regarding new members of EFTA.
Based on this, I'm now fairly certain that us joining EFTA would not automatically lead to us being a member of the EEA.
Perhaps one of our resident lawyers could have a read and see if my interpretation is correct.
"And the return of the United Kingdom on 1 January 2018 because they can't make their bloody minds up. " :-)
Very sad to hear about the MP.