minininja wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

Jeremy Corbyn is wrong. You don't have to be in the EU to be part of the single market. Via @FactCheck.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status ... 2349990912

Well that's disappointing from channel four to be honest. I'd expect journalists claiming to "fact check" to at least be more precise about the difference between membership of the single market and access to it through a separate agreement.

This is why "single market" isn't the best phrase, and "access" is likewise imprecise.

What most people think of as the "single market" is the 1994 EEA agreement, which can certainly be joined by non-EU members. Non-EU members don't implement all relevant directives (fishing and agriculture being the best known), but in the areas they do implement, as EEA parties, they're full members of the single market.

Maybe Gardner should watch this reminder of what Leave were saying about the single market before the referendum:

minininja wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

Jeremy Corbyn is wrong. You don't have to be in the EU to be part of the single market. Via @FactCheck.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status ... 2349990912

Well that's disappointing from channel four to be honest. I'd expect journalists claiming to "fact check" to at least be more precise about the difference between membership of the single market and access to it through a separate agreement.

Hmm. I think it is (precise)?

From C4:

On Sunday, Mr Corbyn said that membership of the single market is dependent on membership of the EU. But the status of four European countries suggests that’s not the case.

The single market is bigger than the EU. It has 32 members: the 28 EU states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

https://fullfact.org/europe/can-you-be- ... eu-member/

It’s technically possible for a non-EU member to be in the single market but it requires accepting a lot of rules set by the EU.

wikipedia (I know, I know)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market

Member states
28 EU states
4 non-EU

I think it IS possible to be a MEMBER of the single market, but not a member of EU. This is entirely different than other countries and states etc who have access. Everyone has access, of one form or another. But the 4 non EU members of the single market are in a position Corbyn says cannot exist.

Let's be blunt. This is on the basis of all evidence is *what Corbyn wants* - hard brexit, not a member of the single market.

Saying we can't, Corbyn is lying.

GrahamH wrote:Maybe Gardner should watch this reminder of what Leave were saying about the single market before the referendum:

To be fair ... and I'm not minded to be so with regard to Farage and Hannan - some of those clips are I believe quote mined (clip mined?) to suggest they *want* that situation, ie Norway option, with their reasons we wouldn't/couldn't snipped. But I could be wrong

ronmcd wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Maybe Gardner should watch this reminder of what Leave were saying about the single market before the referendum:

To be fair ... and I'm not minded to be so with regard to Farage and Hannan - some of those clips are I believe quote mined (clip mined?) to suggest they *want* that situation, ie Norway option, with their reasons we wouldn't/couldn't snipped. But I could be wrong

I recalled Hannan saying that and the clip confirms it. I didn't think any of the leave campaign wanted a Norway deal but I think they said those things as counters to remain arguments. Anyone who Thinks there is a mandate to leave the single market needs to look back at what leave were saying, which was contradictory. We had to leave all things EU but we would suffer no bad consequences and gain abundant prosperity through trade deals with the world (by implication with no loss of sovereignty, not subject to international law courts, no payments, no immigration deals).

I don't think they would have won the referendum if they had all been clear that we would leave the single market , have to pay duty and go through customs checks at every border.

GrahamH wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

GrahamH wrote:Maybe Gardner should watch this reminder of what Leave were saying about the single market before the referendum:

To be fair ... and I'm not minded to be so with regard to Farage and Hannan - some of those clips are I believe quote mined (clip mined?) to suggest they *want* that situation, ie Norway option, with their reasons we wouldn't/couldn't snipped. But I could be wrong

I recalled Hannan sagging that and the clip confirms it. I didn't think any of the leave campaign wanted a Norway deal but I think they said those thin b.s. as counters to remain arguments. Anyone who Thu nd there is a mandate to leave the single market need to look back at what leave wee was saying, which was contradictory. We had to leave all things EU but we would suffer no bad consequences an abundant prosperity.

O don't think they would have won the referendum if they had all been clear that we would leave the single market , have to pay duty and go through customs checks at every border.

Completely agree Graham.

All this has no influence on the Brexit negations. The UK has nothing to say. Likes to think it has but living in a parallel universe is far from reality and the reality is Brussel and Barnier's offer. As I have explained on the Brexit thread. They all can fantasize until the cows come home but nobody on this side of the Channel is listening and in fact it is not even mentioned here anymore.
The simple hard fact is the EU does not need the UK but the UK needs the EU.

Remember the clock is ticking.

Heidi Alexander takes Barry Gardiner to task on his supposed requirements'. She also points out that Brexit means Trade deals and Trade deals mean ceding sovereignty.

Heidi Alexander wrote:Furthermore, our relative democratic ability to shape EU law and regulations seems only ever to be a comparison with the status quo and not a comparison with the alternative future outside the single market. As the smaller party in any future trade negotiations with the EU, we will inevitably cede sovereignty in a future free trade agreement. Our businesses will have to agree to meet the standards and regulations agreed by the EU in order to sell into that market. So why is the inevitable ceding of some sovereignty under a negotiated free trade agreement so much better than having a say as part of the EEA? I just don’t buy it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... toms-union

Assuming there will be negotiations and that is optimistic. You must first get past the three demands. People seem to think they dont exist.
If the UK just falls out of the EU which is very likely it will become a third nation and then has to stand in the queue for a trade deal with an organisation it has done the dirty on. People rattling on about a FTA with the EU are living in cloud cuckoo land. That is years away if it ever will happen. First pay your bills. Anyway if the UK just falls out without fulfilling the three demands expect the EU to start legal proceedings against the UK which can take decades.

Keep the simple facts in mind; the three demands and the four freedoms. Everything else is fantasy.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Assuming there will be negotiations and that is optimistic. You must first get past the three demands. People seem to think they dont exist.
If the UK just falls out of the EU which is very likely it will become a third nation and then has to stand in the queue for a trade deal with an organisation it has done the dirty on. People rattling on about a FTA with the EU are living in cloud cuckoo land. That is years away if it ever will happen. First pay your bills. Anyway if the UK just falls out without fulfilling the three demands expect the EU to start legal proceedings against the UK which can take decades.

Keep the simple facts in mind; the three demands and the four freedoms. Everything else is fantasy.

There's fantasy on both sides, the Tory brexit camp thinking everything will fall into their laps and we'll get the same trade deals but with no cost, and the other side, which more and more seems to be your position Scot - that there is no deal that can be done, UK is fucked, mrjonno was right, we should just wall ourselves in and commit UK-wide suicide today and we deserve everything we get, etc.

Truth is somewhere in the middle. The sane middle. Where if there is will then a deal will be done, but UK (and to some extent EU) will be worse off than before. The scenario thats closest to a disaster - for UK - comes about if the hard brexit tories cause us to fall out without a deal, something many suspect they want.

The odds on the UK government not walking out of EU talks is very low.

Partly because the UK wants the impossible and partly because they want to walk out to show the peasants how patriotic they are.

Just saw Dunkirk and it was weird watching a film where we are the 'good guys' because its simply no longer true, we are a nasty bad country filled with nasty bad people. For the good of humanity this cancerous country needs to be crushed

Ron how about the three demands? The UK must agree to those. The first two are easy to accept; citizens' rights and payments to be paid. It is the third one that I think is the real challenge; the Irish border. May has climbed into bed with the DUPS which makes any agreement almost impossible. Without resolving those three demands there will not be any trade talks.

mrjonno wrote:The odds on the UK government not walking out of EU talks is very low.

Partly because the UK wants the impossible and partly because they want to walk out to show the peasants how patriotic they are.

Just saw Dunkirk and it was weird watching a film where we are the 'good guys' because its simply no longer true, we are a nasty bad country filled with nasty bad people. For the good of humanity this cancerous country needs to be crushed

It will have to drastically change that is for certain. The film Dunkirk arrived at a fortunate time for May. It will give many a rosy glow for summer and bring back the bulldog spirit.

Didn't really 'get' the film, 50 people (not 300 000 no budget for that) on beach try to get boat, boat sinks, they nearly drown. Get on another boat nearly sinks nearly drowns (and some do drown), repeat several times and some people get home for a cup of team.

It was an important moment in British Imperial history (a now defunct country) but I don't think the film represented that

mrjonno wrote:Didn't really 'get' the film, 50 people (not 300 000 no budget for that) on beach try to get boat, boat sinks, they nearly drown. Get on another boat nearly sinks nearly drowns (and some do drown), repeat several times and some people get home for a cup of team.

It was an important moment in British Imperial history (a now defunct country) but I don't think the film represented that

It seems odd that making a film about a defeat and a bad one at that. Dunkirk happened because of arrogance similar to what is being displayed at the Brexit referendum. It is something that is very English. In fact Brexit is turning into a "Dunkirk". Bad organisation and planning. Thinking that British troops were invincible like today in Brexit negotiations.

The English never learn from their mistakes.

It seems odd that making a film about a defeat and a bad one at that. Dunkirk happened because of arrogance similar to what is being displayed at the Brexit referendum. It is something that is very English. In fact Brexit is turning into a "Dunkirk". Bad organisation and planning. Thinking that British troops were invincible like today in Brexit negotiations.

The English never learn from their mistakes.

This is really quite stupid. The Germans swept aside most other forces they faced with their new Blitzkrieg warfare. I don't think it's fair to say defeat by them was due to arrogance.

How were the dutch army doing, scot? Collaborating and grassing on Anne Frank.

You say it's odd making a film about a defeat (it's not actually about a defeat, it's about the escape following defeat.) if you knew Britain, Scot, you would know self-flagellation and self-deprecation are two of the nation's favourite hobbies.

Also, calling the English arrogant when you live in possibly the most notoriously arrogant nation on Earth is funny

This has nothing to do with the labour party, does it? Ok then, Viva Venezuela!

Nothing wrong with Dunkirk as a subject for a film (same with Pearl Harbour) but I just don't think it was particularly good. Didn't really care if anyone got out alive as none of the characters were developed and the constantly going from one sinking boat to another was silly

TheMidnightBarber wrote:

It seems odd that making a film about a defeat and a bad one at that. Dunkirk happened because of arrogance similar to what is being displayed at the Brexit referendum. It is something that is very English. In fact Brexit is turning into a "Dunkirk". Bad organisation and planning. Thinking that British troops were invincible like today in Brexit negotiations.

The English never learn from their mistakes.

This is really quite stupid. The Germans swept aside most other forces they faced with their new Blitzkrieg warfare. I don't think it's fair to say defeat by them was due to arrogance.

How were the dutch army doing, scot? Collaborating and grassing on Anne Frank.

You say it's odd making a film about a defeat (it's not actually about a defeat, it's about the escape following defeat.) if you knew Britain, Scot, you would know self-flagellation and self-deprecation are two of the nation's favourite hobbies.

Also, calling the English arrogant when you live in possibly the most notoriously arrogant nation on Earth is funny

This has nothing to do with the labour party, does it? Ok then, Viva Venezuela!

What a load of bollocks. It really is.

What a load of bollocks. It really is.

Thanks for the insightful response!