Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
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.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
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.
|
The withdrawal agreement with the EU ends 31/12/2020. You only have to look at the advertising posters from 2016 to realise that immigration was a big issue. That includes support from France on immigration. We already know that Brexit will have negative economic impacts. However, if it increases immigration then it will appear to be an abject failure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
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.
|
If by IPR you mean intellectual property rights, the link I supplied was indeed around a broader playing field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
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.
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.
|
It appears everyone has been busy in my absence and I'm looking forward to reading it all. Thank you all for your contributions to the debate.
Ultimately, your arguments boil down to what I believe is a flawed definition of sovereignty. If you're a member of the United Nations then you're a sovereign nation.