OK, let me rephrase it so you can't slink away.

Why do you think the public will agree with your illogical assertion that if we have a Norway type agreement, which isn't a member of the EU, we will still be a member of the EU?

What evidence do you have, other than "feelings" aka wishful thinking?

Just because you interpret 'leaving the EU' as 'no longer being a member', doesn't mean everyone else interprets it that way. I'd say 'leaving the EU' for me is the point you can make trade deals, but I'd also think finally cancelling the so called 4 freedoms within the UK will be the final act of leaving.

Do you really think after 29th March, if we find ourselves stuck in this uncancellable arrangement, people wil think 'oh, that's all over, we've left!'?


Do you really think that? Really?

Can't wait to tell Norwegians they're members of the EU but don't have a vote.

lol you rephrase the argument that was about public perception to being about a dry technical definition cos you are wrong, and you know it

But, feel free to answer this:

Do you really think after 29th March, if we find ourselves stuck in this uncancellable arrangement, people wil think 'oh, that's all over, we've left!'?

I said earlier I don't pretend to know what the public will think about it - isn't that why we had a referendum?

If you cancel your membership of the local gym and have to leave the board where you had a vote on policy, but still turn up to use it pay as you go, are you still a member of the gym? It's a simple question really, you should be able to manage this one.

Here's my view. This deal will not be perceived as delivering the referendum result by the majority of people.

Whats your view?

PS Interested in everyones view on this.

You're projecting again.

Just try to answer this:

If payg makes you a member, you're a member. If it doesn't, you are something else.

But if you said 'I'm leaving the gym' and keep going, then... You haven't left the gym, have you.

I don't think your trite analogy is working as well as you thought it would.

By your line of reasoning we can certainly "leave" the gym by never returning, and using another gym instead. But clearly this option isn't available in the world of international affairs (unless you advocate no further trade with the EU, which I don't think even you are stupid enough to back).

Therefore "leaving" the EU is effected by cancelling our membership regardless if we still have trade agreements with it, which is exactly what the draft agreement does.

BTW I'm no fan at all of this agreement because it gives us less of what we have now possibly at a greater price, and with no accountability.

Still sticking to a trite analogy to avoid answering real questions?

And jamming the real world clumsily into your trite analogy to make it work?

You are persistent.

Where are you real questions?

All I see are attempts at deflection from you.

Sigh.

Again (some minor rephrasing to clarify and tone done the more emotive language):

Do you think after 29th March, if we find ourselves in the arrangement May has negotiated, people will think 'oh, that's all over, we've left'?


I thought you were suggesting earlier it is leaving and most people would see it as leaving too, but I may have misunderstood. Can you clarify your opinion for me please?


(and to repeat my own opinion here, I think most people would not see this as leaving the EU)

No. They won't. But that is the fault of Brexitards for demanding the impossible. If May's deal passes in the Commons -- and at present that does not seem likely -- we will go into a transition period. This will inevitably have to be extended, because you can't conclude such a complex free-trade deal in the short time allowed. But this is what Brexitards voted for. It is all that can be done. The fact that they voted for such a stupid and pointless scheme, which will inevitably leave all of us worse off (except the 1% like May's husband, a hedge-fund manager who is making many millions by betting against sterling), is their fault and nobody else's. It was always going to be this way.

Isn't it extraordinary how people wheel out the nazis every time they're making a a really bad case?

no it isn't

This was about Churchill, not the Nazis.

Nice try though.

I've said twice already I don't know. I don't even know why people voted for Brexit in the first place, other than a general kick in the direction of people they couldn't get at any other way (metropolitan elites, foreigners, bankers), and inchoate anger at neo-liberal policies that will turn all of us into paupers eventually.

I agree it wont be single topic but brexit will suck up so much of the oxygen.

Indeed but Labour have a big say in how this plays out and Labour needs to avoid being outmanouvered by May - if she can't get her deal through parliament then she will be delighted to fight a GE on her deal vs JC's extend and renegotiate.

Nah it's all the same thing. Churchill, Chamberlain. he's talking about appeasment & hitler ain't he.

No sane country -- and that category does not include us -- would ever allow such a disruptive and potentially catastrophic constitutional change to be decided by simple majority, let alone such a slim majority as 52/48. It should simply never have been allowed to happen. And the Leave campaign is now under criminal investigation, and that investigation could well go as high as Theresa May, who as Home Secretary allegedly blocked a previous investigation. (May's husband, as an investment manager, may have profited from the Leave result, for the same reasons that hedge fund manager Crispin Odey has kindly explained -- this is 'disaster capitalism'.)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i...odey-sr3zqf5hz

Again, the public are now majority Remain, by at least 54-46, in repeated polls over many months.

And again, Switzerland held two referendums on EFTA membership: one on whether to apply, and another on whether to proceed with the actual deal agreed with the EU.

Per usual, loads of words from bitterballs and all of them nonsense.

Trade deals + end 4 freedoms ÷ no more stinking immigrants = bigots paradise.

I think it's missing the point which is that JC was the unelectable man becaue people simply wouldn't vote for left wing policies.

40% voted for Labour. Yes there are specific facts about the last ge (not all favourable) but it proves that the unelectable stuff is bollocks. Voters will vote for him.


Yeah 15 years followed by a few years of tories and in total the country has got far worse and moved further to the right. Fan-bloody-tastic!

Plus if we're lucky we can join trump in some marvelous wars and balls up the economy.

Versus Corbyn, the Tories, despite running the worst campaign in history (with May deliberately and suicidally attacking their core pensioner vote), scored their highest vote share since Thatcher v Foot in 1983.

you do know what the remain-leave poll stats were just before the real referendum, right?