[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Not really as he's the person to take up your buyer's remorse with. And that question on its own is impossible to answer. Leavers need to own a situation of their creation.

But pleading with a third country to try and prevent migrants coming to the UK whilst simultaneously trying to withdraw that country's fishing rights is not the brightest of ideas.

OB has reminded me that the highlighted paragraph should draw comment from me.

The migrants trying to come to the UK are in breach of EU law which requires them to register for asylum in the first EU landing point.

The UK is not withdrawing France's fishing rights. The EU and UK have signed a WA and the UK is withdrawing from the EU. With that comes legal sovereignty over all our waters. If we traded fishing rights for no migrants, do you think that would work? No, of course not. So why bother.

I'm disappointed at the degeneration of your argument quality. Earlier you claimed that the Canada TA with the EU instituted a level playing field; on closer examination that was specifically for IPR.

The truth is simple: you were content to remain in the EU and the majority of voters disagreed with you and, as late as last December, still did. When you are asked for your preferred approach, at last you came up with an answer: the EFTA model.

1Andrew1: ... as close a deal with the EU as possible so we should elect for a deal like the EFTA countries have without the Schengen area

Pip ripped that apart. Isn't that embarrassing? And at all costs you don't want to be accused of recommending that we give in to the EU on sovereignty (ECJ jurisdiction) - you prefer the weasel words "agree" because it is a negotiation.

I'm sorry that you're cornered here (you'll deny it) but there's no way out except rational and realistic argument.