In article e.net,
(Mark Goodge) wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:01:53 +0100, "tim..." put
finger to keyboard and typed:

"Recliner" wrote in message

al-september.org...

So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between
several (legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style)
alternative scenarios. There are at least three, and the population
could have chosen whether they preferred immigration control over the
single market, etc.

In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been
compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to
leave would know exactly which option they were mandating the
government to seek.

The problem with this approach is, what happens if the EU won't offer us
the preferred alternative, after we have committed to leave?

There are, broadly speaking, three post-EU options:

1. Membership of the EEA and EFTA (the "Norway" model).
2. Membership of EFTA, but not the EEA (the "Switzerland" model).
3. No European trade bloc membership at all.

Obviously, all of those have different sub-options, and there are more
variants to option 2 than option 1 and many more variants to option 3 than
options 2 and 1. But they do represent three distinct scenarios which
could usefully be voted on.

What also makes them viable as voting choices is that the EU cannot deny
us any of them. EEA membership is available to any member of either the EU
or EFTA. So if we join EFTA, the EU cannot exclude us from the EEA if
that's what we want. The other EFTA members could, theoretically, veto an
application to join them. But that is vanishingly unlikely to happen. The
UK was actually a founder member of EFTA, but subsequently left when we
joined the then EEC. Returning is unlikely to be a problem (in real life,
we have already been told we are welcome to rejoin; that assurance could
easily have been obtained prior to the vote if necessary). And, obviously,
if we choose to remain entirely unaffiliated, then there's nothing the EU
could do about that either.

In real life, I think it's likely we will end up as members of EFTA. The
benefits are useful, and the downsides of belonging are minimal
(membership carries far fewer obligations than EU membership). Whether we
then go for EEA membership will depend, I think, on whether or not we can
negotiate a suitable set of Swiss-style bilateral treaties with the EU or
whether the only way to get what we want is to join the EEA.

Given the tussle currently ongoing between the EU and the Swiss on free
movement we sure ain't going to get that option without free movement to go
with free trade.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (bob) wrote:

Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:01:53 +0100, "tim..."
put finger to keyboard and typed:

"Recliner" wrote in message

l-september.org...

So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between
several (legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style)
alternative scenarios. There are at least three, and the population
could have chosen whether they preferred immigration control over the
single market, etc.

In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been
compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to
leave would know exactly which option they were mandating the
government to seek.

The problem with this approach is, what happens if the EU won't offer
us the preferred alternative, after we have committed to leave?

There are, broadly speaking, three post-EU options:

1. Membership of the EEA and EFTA (the "Norway" model).
2. Membership of EFTA, but not the EEA (the "Switzerland" model).
3. No European trade bloc membership at all.

Obviously, all of those have different sub-options, and there are more
variants to option 2 than option 1 and many more variants to option 3
than options 2 and 1. But they do represent three distinct scenarios
which could usefully be voted on.

What also makes them viable as voting choices is that the EU cannot deny
us any of them. EEA membership is available to any member of either the
EU or EFTA. So if we join EFTA, the EU cannot exclude us from the EEA if
that's what we want. The other EFTA members could, theoretically, veto
an application to join them. But that is vanishingly unlikely to happen.
The UK was actually a founder member of EFTA, but subsequently left when
we joined the then EEC. Returning is unlikely to be a problem (in real
life, we have already been told we are welcome to rejoin; that assurance
could easily have been obtained prior to the vote if necessary). And,
obviously, if we choose to remain entirely unaffiliated, then there's
nothing the EU could do about that either.

In real life, I think it's likely we will end up as members of EFTA. The
benefits are useful, and the downsides of belonging are minimal
(membership carries far fewer obligations than EU membership). Whether
we then go for EEA membership will depend, I think, on whether or not we
can negotiate a suitable set of Swiss-style bilateral treaties with the
EU or whether the only way to get what we want is to join the EEA.

The difficulty is both EEA and EFTA involve paying money to the EU and
accepting free movement of people. An awful lot of people who voted
"leave" we're under the impression these were the things they were voting
to get rid of, and will be pretty miffed if they are retained.

A recent opinion poll showed about 2 supporting remaining in the single
market to 1 supporting the end of free movement.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

bob wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:01:53 +0100, "tim..." put
finger to keyboard and typed:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...

So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between several
(legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style) alternative
scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have chosen
whether they preferred immigration control over the single market, etc.

In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been
compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to leave
would know exactly which option they were mandating the government to
seek.

The problem with this approach is, what happens if the EU won't offer us the
preferred alternative, after we have committed to leave?

There are, broadly speaking, three post-EU options:

1. Membership of the EEA and EFTA (the "Norway" model).
2. Membership of EFTA, but not the EEA (the "Switzerland" model).
3. No European trade bloc membership at all.

Obviously, all of those have different sub-options, and there are more
variants to option 2 than option 1 and many more variants to option 3 than
options 2 and 1. But they do represent three distinct scenarios which could
usefully be voted on.

What also makes them viable as voting choices is that the EU cannot deny us
any of them. EEA membership is available to any member of either the EU or
EFTA. So if we join EFTA, the EU cannot exclude us from the EEA if that's
what we want. The other EFTA members could, theoretically, veto an
application to join them. But that is vanishingly unlikely to happen. The
UK was actually a founder member of EFTA, but subsequently left when we
joined the then EEC. Returning is unlikely to be a problem (in real life,
we have already been told we are welcome to rejoin; that assurance could
easily have been obtained prior to the vote if necessary). And, obviously,
if we choose to remain entirely unaffiliated, then there's nothing the EU
could do about that either.

In real life, I think it's likely we will end up as members of EFTA. The
benefits are useful, and the downsides of belonging are minimal (membership
carries far fewer obligations than EU membership). Whether we then go for
EEA membership will depend, I think, on whether or not we can negotiate a
suitable set of Swiss-style bilateral treaties with the EU or whether the
only way to get what we want is to join the EEA.

The difficulty is both EEA and EFTA involve paying money to the EU and
accepting free movement of people. An awful lot of people who voted "leave"
we're under the impression these were the things they were voting to get
rid of, and will be pretty miffed if they are retained.

On the other hand, you only need a few of those who voted leave to be in
favour of EEA or EFTA membership to give an overall majority in favour of
such membership (given the reasonable assumption that those who voted
remain would be in favour of EEA or EFTA membership as the next best thing
to EU membership).

In any case, when they discover the realities of what can really be
negotiated with the EU and other countries (as opposed to the delusional
picture painted by the leave campaigners) a lot of people who voted leave
will be miffed anyway...

--
Jeremy Double

If, and unfortunately it's a big "if" with our new Prime Minister
and Chancellor Of The Exchequer, we take no free movement
combined with WTO tariffs, only the small number of free
movement fanatics will be miffed.

If, as I fear, Mrs. May is willing to accept free movement
in exchange for free access, a very large number of people
will be annoyed. In that situation, Mrs. May's career will
depend mainly on the Labour Party's complete lack of credibility.

Her choices are limited. As the SNP will try to block Brexit in
Parliament, and will receive much support from the Liberal
Democrats and many Labour MPs, at some stage Mrs. May
will have to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act and call a
general election. She will then have a commanding majority in
The House but most of her back-benchers will be strongly
opposed to free movement. She is unlikely to be able to
ignore them.

In message e.net, at
21:06:21 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016, Mark Goodge
remarked:
There are, broadly speaking, three post-EU options:

1. Membership of the EEA and EFTA (the "Norway" model).
2. Membership of EFTA, but not the EEA (the "Switzerland" model).
3. No European trade bloc membership at all.

Obviously, all of those have different sub-options, and there are more
variants to option 2 than option 1 and many more variants to option 3 than
options 2 and 1. But they do represent three distinct scenarios which could
usefully be voted on.

What also makes them viable as voting choices is that the EU cannot deny us
any of them. EEA membership is available to any member of either the EU or
EFTA. So if we join EFTA, the EU cannot exclude us from the EEA if that's
what we want. The other EFTA members could, theoretically, veto an
application to join them. But that is vanishingly unlikely to happen.

Also mindful that currently EFTA is a very small club: Iceland,
Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

One of the oft-overlooked aspects of the "Norway" mode is it doesn't
include free trade in fish/agriculture; nor does the Swiss" model
include freedom of movement of capital and services.

And of course 1&2 also require us to keep agreeing to freedom of
movement.

Here's a handy chart: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmwXJT8WcAA_LkB.jpg
--
Roland Perry

wrote in message
...
In article , (bob) wrote:

Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:01:53 +0100, "tim..."
put finger to keyboard and typed:

"Recliner" wrote in message

l-september.org...

So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between
several (legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style)
alternative scenarios. There are at least three, and the population
could have chosen whether they preferred immigration control over the
single market, etc.

In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been
compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to
leave would know exactly which option they were mandating the
government to seek.

The problem with this approach is, what happens if the EU won't offer
us the preferred alternative, after we have committed to leave?

There are, broadly speaking, three post-EU options:

1. Membership of the EEA and EFTA (the "Norway" model).
2. Membership of EFTA, but not the EEA (the "Switzerland" model).
3. No European trade bloc membership at all.

Obviously, all of those have different sub-options, and there are more
variants to option 2 than option 1 and many more variants to option 3
than options 2 and 1. But they do represent three distinct scenarios
which could usefully be voted on.

What also makes them viable as voting choices is that the EU cannot
deny
us any of them. EEA membership is available to any member of either the
EU or EFTA. So if we join EFTA, the EU cannot exclude us from the EEA
if
that's what we want. The other EFTA members could, theoretically, veto
an application to join them. But that is vanishingly unlikely to
happen.
The UK was actually a founder member of EFTA, but subsequently left
when
we joined the then EEC. Returning is unlikely to be a problem (in real
life, we have already been told we are welcome to rejoin; that
assurance
could easily have been obtained prior to the vote if necessary). And,
obviously, if we choose to remain entirely unaffiliated, then there's
nothing the EU could do about that either.

In real life, I think it's likely we will end up as members of EFTA.
The
benefits are useful, and the downsides of belonging are minimal
(membership carries far fewer obligations than EU membership). Whether
we then go for EEA membership will depend, I think, on whether or not
we
can negotiate a suitable set of Swiss-style bilateral treaties with the
EU or whether the only way to get what we want is to join the EEA.

The difficulty is both EEA and EFTA involve paying money to the EU and
accepting free movement of people. An awful lot of people who voted
"leave" we're under the impression these were the things they were voting
to get rid of, and will be pretty miffed if they are retained.

A recent opinion poll showed about 2 supporting remaining in the single
market

so why did they vote to leave then?

what have they gained if we just sign straight back up to the single market
paying in 250 million pounds per week (and getting no subsidies back)

I smell a biased question

to 1 supporting the end of free movement.

tim

On 2016-07-14 20:56:47 +0000, said:

A recent opinion poll showed about 2 supporting remaining in the single
market to 1 supporting the end of free movement.

Precisely - some will moan if freedom of movement remains, but they are
in the minority. I think it's fair to say all Remain voters supported
freedom of movement at least to some extent, as their vote would have
resulted in it certainly continuing. As only some Leave voters
supported ending it, there is not a majority in favour of ending it, so
if those people moan they can be ignored.

If necessary, another referendum could prove this conclusively.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2016-07-15 08:29:59 +0000, Robin9 said:

Her choices are limited. As the SNP will try to block Brexit in
Parliament, and will receive much support from the Liberal
Democrats and many Labour MPs, at some stage Mrs. May
will have to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act and call a
general election. She will then have a commanding majority in
The House but most of her back-benchers will be strongly
opposed to free movement.

Whyever do you think that? Parliament is quite heavily pro-European.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

"Robin9" wrote in message
...

Jeremy Double;156812 Wrote:
bob wrote:-
Mark Goodge wrote:-
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 10:01:53 +0100, "tim..."
put
finger to keyboard and typed:
-

"Recliner" wrote in message
...

So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between
several
(legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style)
alternative
scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have
chosen
whether they preferred immigration control over the single market,
etc.

In the second round, the most popular of these would then have been
compared with remaining an EU member. That way, everyone voting to
leave
would know exactly which option they were mandating the government to
seek.

The problem with this approach is, what happens if the EU won't offer
us the
preferred alternative, after we have committed to leave?-

There are, broadly speaking, three post-EU options:

1. Membership of the EEA and EFTA (the "Norway" model).
2. Membership of EFTA, but not the EEA (the "Switzerland" model).
3. No European trade bloc membership at all.

Obviously, all of those have different sub-options, and there are more
variants to option 2 than option 1 and many more variants to option 3
than
options 2 and 1. But they do represent three distinct scenarios which
could
usefully be voted on.

What also makes them viable as voting choices is that the EU cannot
deny us
any of them. EEA membership is available to any member of either the EU
or
EFTA. So if we join EFTA, the EU cannot exclude us from the EEA if
that's
what we want. The other EFTA members could, theoretically, veto an
application to join them. But that is vanishingly unlikely to happen.
The
UK was actually a founder member of EFTA, but subsequently left when
we
joined the then EEC. Returning is unlikely to be a problem (in real
life,
we have already been told we are welcome to rejoin; that assurance
could
easily have been obtained prior to the vote if necessary). And,
obviously,
if we choose to remain entirely unaffiliated, then there's nothing the
EU
could do about that either.

In real life, I think it's likely we will end up as members of EFTA.
The
benefits are useful, and the downsides of belonging are minimal
(membership
carries far fewer obligations than EU membership). Whether we then go
for
EEA membership will depend, I think, on whether or not we can negotiate
a
suitable set of Swiss-style bilateral treaties with the EU or whether
the
only way to get what we want is to join the EEA. -

The difficulty is both EEA and EFTA involve paying money to the EU and
accepting free movement of people. An awful lot of people who voted
"leave"
we're under the impression these were the things they were voting to
get
rid of, and will be pretty miffed if they are retained.-

On the other hand, you only need a few of those who voted leave to be
in
favour of EEA or EFTA membership to give an overall majority in favour
of
such membership (given the reasonable assumption that those who voted
remain would be in favour of EEA or EFTA membership as the next best
thing
to EU membership).

In any case, when they discover the realities of what can really be
negotiated with the EU and other countries (as opposed to the
delusional
picture painted by the leave campaigners) a lot of people who voted
leave
will be miffed anyway...

--
Jeremy Double

If, and unfortunately it's a big "if" with our new Prime Minister
and Chancellor Of The Exchequer, we take no free movement
combined with WTO tariffs, only the small number of free
movement fanatics will be miffed.

If, as I fear, Mrs. May is willing to accept free movement
in exchange for free access,

ISTM that the team she has put in place will not accept this.

The EU really has its head in the sand over this. It really does seem to
think that we will roll over and ask to have our tummy tickled. The sooner
it gets to understand that we wont, the better it will be for everyone
(UK/EU/ROW). It really does need to offer sensible concessions on FoM or I
think that our negotiators really will walk away.

The situation has become intolerable for a large percentage of the
population.

a very large number of people
will be annoyed. In that situation, Mrs. May's career will
depend mainly on the Labour Party's complete lack of credibility.

Her choices are limited. As the SNP will try to block Brexit in
Parliament, and will receive much support from the Liberal
Democrats and many Labour MPs, at some stage Mrs. May
will have to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act and call a
general election. She will then have a commanding majority in
The House but most of her back-benchers will be strongly
opposed to free movement. She is unlikely to be able to
ignore them.

and the millions of voters who will switch to UKIP

tim

In message , at 10:19:40 on Fri, 15 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:
If, as I fear, Mrs. May is willing to accept free movement
in exchange for free access,

ISTM that the team she has put in place will not accept this.

The EU really has its head in the sand over this. It really does seem
to think that we will roll over and ask to have our tummy tickled. The
sooner it gets to understand that we wont, the better it will be for
everyone (UK/EU/ROW). It really does need to offer sensible
concessions on FoM or I think that our negotiators really will walk away.

In which case it's "hello WTO". Is that what you want?

The situation has become intolerable for a large percentage of the
population.

What situation?
--
Roland Perry