The EU will always keep the door open - on their terms. Once we have rejected the EU on our terms (opt outs, debates etc) it can't be assumed we can go back in as we were. If we cared about this option, we would establish it before triggering article 50, not go in blind.PaulfromYorkshire wrote:It's my belief that Brexit is largely a political, rather than a legal, process. Imagine there was a general election within the next year or so and a clearly Remain PM was elected with a solid mandate for Remain.Willow904 wrote:If you don't like the term Lexit, I won't use it, though I've never knowingly applied it as an insult, just stated it wasn't an option I favour. I want to stay in the single market. I happen to view that as perfectly achievable by those who want to achieve it, why would it not be? Given the only alternative now we are leaving the EU is a "hard Brexit" which would leave us isolated and struggling to achieve decent terms of trade, the only way I see of avoiding economic turmoil and job losses is by remaining in the EEA. Which means talking up the benefits of the single market, not the negatives, else how else can a consensus for this least worst option be won?RobertSnozers wrote: I don't agree with this at all. The majority of people (as it turned out) had significant misgivings about the EU, and while it's fine to play up the benefits during the debate it would be foolish in the extreme to deny or ignore the shortcomings. The view has to be that it's not perfect, and while it's better than the alternative, we should also lobby to improve it. Given that Corbyn is in absolutely no position to block Brexit, why do you think he would make trouble for himself by arguing for something that's not possible? Jack Straw used to be a member of the communist party, but I don't look at all his actions through the prism of hidden Leninism. I do not think it's right to characterise anyone as a Lexiter who points out that the EU has had a privatisation agenda of the kind that we attack the Tories for, and often prevents us from protecting our public services against commercial interests. Especially as Lexiter seems to have become the insult de jour.
It's impossible to argue for a Norway option. Utterly impossible. It would involve arguing that we have to pay pretty much what we used to, and accept total free movement. It would be completely untenable. There would probably be riots. And that's even if we're offered it, which we won't be.
I feel sometimes that I'm at serious cross purposes with many posters. Am I correct in thinking that some are thinking along the lines that we will somehow be able to stay in the EU after all? I just don't see that. Once we trigger article 50 we will be leaving, surely. Isn't that the whole point of having to respect the referendum? The only question unsettled is our future relationship. Will it be as part of the single market like Norway or outside it, like the rest of the world? I mean I'm not saying in some unforseen scenario that we might not leave the EU after all, but I can't rely on such slim hopes. Everything I comment is based on the assumption that once article 50 is triggered there will be no opportunity to halt the process and even if this proves false, there is no reason to assume a Tory majority government set on a hard Brexit will choose to halt it even if they could.
So remaining in the single market is all I have to hang on to.
If Corbyn does indeed think like you and believe a Norway option unachievable and not worth fighting for, then my sense that he doesn't really represent my preferred position is pretty spot on, isn't it?
Do you really think the EU would say no sod off you triggered Article 50 and it's too late?
Going through the legal process in the courts and Parliament is important because it ensures due diligence and allows scrutiny. But ultimately, the outcome of this will depend on politics IMHO. The Remain camp needs both to make a strong case for the EU, but also to leave space and time for those who voted Leave to find their way back.
Perhaps I'm too cynical. But the UK hasn't many friends in the EU, especially since Cameron's particular brand of non-diplomacy. The terms of article 50 makes it sound way too much like any one of the 27 could hold a grudge and keep us out once we start the ball rolling for my liking.
And there's also the matter of will. We will only stay in if at some point we will it and I see no sign that this Tory majority government has that will. It will be 2020 and too late before there is another government.
If there was any way an amendment was passed that could legally bind the government to remaining in if their negotiations were rejected by parliament, there would be grounds for hope; if we can only be taken out of the EEA by a parliament vote, there are grounds for hope. But these are really big "ifs".
