Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35873326)

No we wouldn't do the same thing as nothing like that is meant to happen until we leave the EU and we are sticking to it but on the EU side not so much.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35873323)

But let's say we're free from EU social chapter legislation, we have privileged access to the single market and we also control immigration? Isn't that an ideal scenario even with a fee?

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35873258)

Wrong - the government needs to take the views of what the leave side voted for. A democratic decision has to be upheld and that decision was LEAVE. I mean, wtf is this where the winning side should be dictated in to negotiations to partially remain in the EU by the losing side of democracy ?

There is no possible way to come to some mutual agreement or understanding because the fundamental principles of each campaigns are at opposite sides of the argument.

The Country voted to leave, the remain side and their campaign lost the democratic decision and they want to remain and now, even after losing and somewhat accepting the decision, now campaigning to keep one foot in the door to the EU, it should not be happening because that is not what the leave camp want or voted for.

Had the remain campaign won, there is no way in hell the remain camp would have listened to the leave camp and worked with them to try and achieve a common ground together, we would have been told to bugger off and accept the decision to remain. There would have been no, 'let's see what a 'remain' decision would look like.'

Pfffft.... We already knew what a remain side would look like because Cameron failed to get us a convincing deal prior to the referendum, when he went to Brussels to try and renegotiate our membership arrangements and we was told there would be no further negotiations post-referendum and that's if we had remained, thank heavens we voted the other way, bloody EU cretins. :td:

When we vote a Party in to power, they do not then go down the route of well, 'we'll take the losers views on how to run the Country', DON'T think so.

Out completely from that rotten establishment, that is all I am interested in because that's what I and many many others voted for.

On June 23rd 2016, 17.4 Million people didn't suddenly forget what the definition of 'Leave' meant. I certainly did not!

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35873337)

I've answered Damien's question leave means leave completely and total I'm very clear on that you however seem to be the one having trouble understanding what leave meant I'm not sure how much clearer i can make myself.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35873344)

So you wouldn't be happy with the situation he described then even if made financial sense to the UK to do it?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35873310)

Good point. And no one has named the nations that we should now be dealing with. India told us where to go unless we increased student visas. China and Russia are impregnable. Theresa May said South Korea and then realised it had a free trade deal with the EU already! In the meantime, the EU is quietly negotiating a deal with Japan, population 127m.

---------- Post added at 14:44 ---------- Previous post was at 14:43 ----------

lol, good call!

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35873348)

No-one is saying we shouldn't deal with the EU, the stumbling point is on what basis..

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35873359)

This is why the government has to have a free hand and not have to be running back and forth all the time divulging our plans.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35873320)

How much should we pay for the privilege of trading with the EU and given there are dedicated teams working to take as many financial services as they can from london how much do we want to pay.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35873323)

The financial services would stay here if they had assurances their access to Europe would continue. It would undercut the ability for France and Germany to take them. We shouldn't hold that against France or Germany btw, we would do the same thing.

No idea of how much we would pay. Not remotely qualified enough to put a value on it.

But let's say we're free from EU social chapter legislation, we have privileged access to the single market and we also control immigration? Isn't that an ideal scenario even with a fee?

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35873353)

Yup. That's what this discussion is about though. If we get 'control' over our laws and immigration but keep as much access to the single market as is feasible without compromising 'control' then I don't see the motivation for railing against other than it being a wilful act of national sabotage. The Brexiters would have gotten what they wanted and yet still want to go further and remove the positives just so we can say we don't deal with the EU anymore. They've got the divorce, managed to keep the house but now want to burn it down to prove a point.

Now if they did want control + market access then the rest of it just becomes a case of degrees and how good a deal we can get. I would say paying a fee is one of the easiest concessions to make as it's simple and doesn't compromise on the control aspect.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35873364)

Don't get me wrong, I am a passionate Brexiter I just don't agree with the lilly livered alternatives you come out with.

I can see a deal being brokered with the EU in the A50 negotiation period.

What I can also see is remoaners scuppering every chance of a deal with their constant Legal challanges against the will of the majority.

The poor dears.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35873364)

Don't get me wrong, I am a passionate Brexiter I just don't agree with the lilly livered alternatives you come out with.

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35873367)

The example I have given is a best case scenario. We get control of immigration, laws and retain access with services to the single market. Even that is somehow 'lilly livered'...:erm: