I don't think that is a valid comparision. The conditions for membership of the SM and CU when the UK joined the EEC were very different to that appertaining to membership now.
It's a good thing that absolutely everything else in the world is exactly the same as it was in 1974 then, isn't it?
A person's view on the changes to the EEC/EU since 1974 in comparison to the changes in the rest of the world will assist in determining their view towards Brexit, I presume.
The single market - the creation of which was driven and shaped by Thatcher didn't exist in 1974.
The average person doesn't need to know such details and has better things to do than to spend time understanding them. Which is why they would rely on others to explain the issues, and it's particularly important that the campaigns don't distort the truth.
It is important to remember that while Ireland voted against Nice the first time, changes were then made in the treaty which facilitated a positive vote.
Indeed I think some who voted remain including myself have little time for Brussels, the EU parliament or any further integration, and as Brussels has further developed the general population has had very little say about it.
Perhaps the Irish don't want all those British people, particularly the ones with no brains.
I can’t imagine the ones with no brains would move to Ireland. I can imagine there could be a slight “brain drain” from the UK moving to Ireland, particularly those who will benefit more from EU membership, such as for business and academia, and just to have the benefit of an EU passport.
Perhaps the stupidity has been with those who have been blinded by the light of the EU, those who didn't see Brexit coming from a long way off, and those who chose to be dismissive of the issues in contention, and did nothing or little in mitigation.
Perhaps that Ireland is a net consumer of EU funds, whereas the UK was a net contributor?
I really doubt that the English will decamp en-masse to Ireland. It doesn't take much brains to realise that moving countries in order to obtain the advantages of EU citizenship is not really on the radar of the average British person.
Ireland is now a net contributor.
Also the Queen does not decide on or vote on any government policy.
Not only did the MP for Maidenhead know. The former MPs for Huntingdon and Sedgefield warned us that a Leave vote would cause problems for NI.
Given that the CU was pretty much the same as the (former) EEC, and we voted to remain in the EEC in 1975, we should have remained in the CU upon leaving the EU.
Was leaving the SM but not the CU a practicable scenario? I think they are intertwined?
The current Government full well knew this too. Brexit leaving the SM/CU renders the NI border an intractable problem. But were they going to let the NI border stop departure from the SM/CU? No. So a bodge was agreed, pretty much know that it wouldn't work, got Brexit done on 1.1.20, and then try and sort it out after the fait accompli. Remember, this was a one-time opportunity to Brexit - get bogged down and probably never get another chance.
While it wouldn't have made much sense, I can't see any reason why not.
Funnily enough, she actually does!
Correct, the EFTA-countries are not part of the CU.
In the long-term, the obvious hard border between England and the EU is along the Solway Firth/Cheviots/River Tweed, and the Irish border problem will be solved by a united Ireland incorporating all 32 counties. Offa's Dyke is more problematic.
I do not think that the option was available without conditions that were central to Brexit anyway.
Intractable as in not going to be solved in 2020. The longer term is speculation, and circumstances can change, as they have done since the EEC morphed into the EU.
Agreed that all things are possible, but the direction of movement has been towards the breakup of the UK for a while (in at least Irish reunification, if not Scottish independence) and the nature of the Brexit that the HM Government has sought only helps to accelerate that motion.
It is mostly low-margin like trading in equities. There is no profit in this, and not many jobs. Most of it is being done by branches of London outfits that have been set up in Amsterdam.More winning.
Brexit: London loses out as Europe's top share trading hub
Amsterdam ousts London in the wake of Brexit changes, as the Bank of England warns over EU financial rules.www.bbc.co.uk
Even if the profit margins are thin, when you're talking billions it adds up. And it's profits being earned (and taxed) in the EU rather than London.
I rather think that this is more based on hope than any principle of law. I cannot find any sources that support your argument that don't also display serious right-wing, pro-Brexit bias. Perhaps you might oblige?
oh well they're obviously disqualified then, because right wing pro brexit commentators are always wrong, just like theyv'e been wrong about everything from referendum result predicting to whether or not to join the EU joint vaccine programme.
If it is likely as you claim, then it shouldn't be too hard to find an unbiased source that agrees, no?
