On 21/05/2017 11:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
The whole basis of the leave campaign was the gamble we could have our
cake and eat it. Sensible people know gamblers always lose.

I don't see that. When we were in, and the EU wanted to change its model
to something more political and less prosperous, Britain tried to
persuade them out of it.

The EU want themselves to be less prosperous? Do tell.

They don't /want/ to make themselves less prosperous but they have been
very clear that they want a Brexit deal with that effect. Their pet
project always comes above prosperity.


They said: You cannot be in and not come with
us on our journey. When we resisted they said you cannot have your cake
and eat it.

The UK was only ever interested in itself. Nothing wrong with that -
provided it doesn't become a 'them and us' game. Which is the way the
majority of the meja played it for many a year.

But now we are leaving. We don't want their mouldy old cake. We'll agree
a trade deal if they want, and we'll be completely outside. No cake. No
eating it. No cherries. No picking. Outside. With a trade relationship
just like other independent nations.

Pray tell of one of those 'independent nations' that have a trade deal
with the EU?

I don't know what you are asking.


The thing is this ain't the 19th century.

Then why do you keep using 19th century terms like "do tell" and "pray
tell"...?

Trade agreements between the
various countries are already mature. Which is why trying to set up an
additional one - like say between the US and EU - is extremely difficult
and takes ages. Because one agreement can effect another.

What we have done is akin to leaving a well paid job on a whim. Saying it
will be easy to get another. Only a fool does that.



--
James Harris