Originally Posted by DXBtoDOH

Your first point is irrelevant. Immigration was the biggest motivation for the referendum and why people voted to leave. Everything else was secondary by a substantial margin and even the notion of sovereignty was heavily tied with the ability to control immigration. Norway does nothing for this. Absolutely nothing. Because under Norway you have full FOM. So why is Norway a compromise? And to worsen it, you lose what influence or vote you have over all the regulations you have to accept. So there goes any sovereignty. That's two big red lines flushed down the toilet and we're left in a worse position than we're currently in.

You keep talking about a compromise but how is Norway a compromise to the Brexiteers when it's mainly to allow the Remainers to pretend they haven't left the EU while the Brexiteers get nothing meaningful. That you speak of Norway as a compromise speaks volumes about your biases.

I don't give a flying **** if the most pro Leave areas were the ones with the lower rates of immigration. It's one country. They have every right to be just as concerned as anyone in London. Besides, remember that 40% of London voted to leave. That's pretty damn impressive for a city like London.

Originally Posted by DXBtoDOH

Oh, look at this. People who knew they could get a better deal than May did. Pray, tell me, how is Norway deal better? Or how can we get a better deal that isn't May's deal? What we have is, according to the EU, the very best possible deal.

You speak of May's red lines. But those red lines did reflect the referendum. She knew the real reason the country voted to leave, the real trigger behind the referendum, was immigration. If there had been no FOM, there would have been no Brexit. Don't end FOM, you have an utterly pointless Brexit. How would a cross party commission done anything differently? Remember, nearly half didn't want to leave and would only agree to a BINO that made Brexit pointless. And the other half wants to leave and won't agree to a BINO that makes Brexit pointless. Actually, when you get down to it, the best a cross party commission could have come up with would be...ta de dah....May's deal.

And May did come up with a deal that ended FOM while maintaining pretty close economic ties with the EU. And look how berserk everyone, both remain and leave, went.

Same shitshow. Your fictional cross party commission would have come up with the exact same shitshow.

It was always going to be either remain or leave, both in the fullest sense of the word. Nothing in between.

Originally Posted by nonthaburi

which kind of shows how ignorant people are, as immigration from TROTW far outweighs that from the EU.

Get Brexit and that's not going to change, and will most likely increase.

Originally Posted by reddiva

. A colleague sent 75,000GBP back to the UK for his mortgage and it wasnt flagged

Originally Posted by mathematist

Ok thanks. Just heard that large amounts take longer , delayed or cancelled and so not sure. Am useless at financial stuff tbh

Originally Posted by DXBtoDOH

What belongs to us?

The allegory doesn't quite work, methinks. The EU isn't a party insomuch as a cartel. That's the blunt description of it, a more polite one is club. You're right that the club has rights to dictate its terms for access and membership. The mistake people in the UK made, both the Brexiteers and May and her negotiating team, was thinking in the typical British approach that things have changed, perhaps regrettably so, but let's build on that. The EU, however, does not see things as changing and seeking to build on that, for they are ideologues, it's their way or the door. No compromise. No flexibility. Their entire negotiation approach is to make sure Britain suffers outside the EU, they don't see it as a future between partners, but, using their terminology, between the EU and a third party. It's a breathtakingly arrogant attitude when you think about it. Not even the US dares to take that attitude with their big trade partners.

Compromise and flexibility have been part of the British political mindset for generations. If Scotland had voted for independence, do you think we'd have treated Scotland the same way the EU has approached the negotiations? Hardly not. We'd be sorry but we'd have understood things have changed and wouldn't be seeking to punish Scotland and trying to force Scotland into a model that would always be inferior to being part of the UK. It'd be a fair divorce, and good luck and hope we remain good partners.

Originally Posted by DXBtoDOH

Their entire negotiation approach is to make sure Britain suffers outside the EU, they don't see it as a future between partners, but, using their terminology, between the EU and a third party. It's a breathtakingly arrogant attitude when you think about it. Not even the US dares to take that attitude with their big trade partners.

Originally Posted by Pongo

Diane Abbot?

Originally Posted by Scamp

Couldn't find odds for PM, but on being next Labour leader you can get 100/1.
Eddie Izzard you can get 66/1.

Originally Posted by weasel decentral

That's optimistic (or pessimistic). Over what time frame?

Originally Posted by Millhouse

It can happen. The big ones are often reviewed by the central bank and they question the usage code on the transaction.

Originally Posted by mathematist

So what happens when I eventually leave this place and need to transfer all my money back in one lump sum? Does that not happen? FYI, my money is fully legit and from month to salary only but over 5 years.Thanks.

Originally Posted by mathematist

So what happens when I eventually leave this place and need to transfer all my money back in one lump sum? Does that not happen? FYI, my money is fully legit and from month to salary only but over 5 years.Thanks.

Originally Posted by mathematist

So what happens when I eventually leave this place and need to transfer all my money back in one lump sum? Does that not happen? FYI, my money is fully legit and from month to salary only but over 5 years.Thanks.