"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 11:27:13 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Graham Murray" wrote in message
...
bob writes:

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.

But all we voted for was in/out. It was well known before the
referendum
vote that should the vote be out, that the terms under which we leave
the EU and any subsequent negotiations with both the EU and the rest
of
the world were unknown.

As was the vote to remain

Basically the vote to leave was a leap into the
unknown.

As a vote to remain would be

The status quo is unknown ?

why is that a question?

The status quo is most definitely unknown, that's the problem with
Remain.

Obviously it's not unknown in the grammatical sense, but in referendum
terms, it is - no one knows what rules the EU is going to impose on us
next,
or indeed what the next Euro crisis is going to inflict upon members.

But history suggests that whatever these new rules are they will not, in
the
main, be ones that benefit the UK.

In fact, history suggests that most of the new EU rules wouldn't affect
the UK at all. Most of the EU rule changes are to try and make the
struggling eurozone and Schengen zone work better, and so didn't affect
us.
And at least we had a significant say, and sometimes a veto, over other
rules that did affect us. They'll probably still affect us when we're
outside the EU, but now we have no say, and certainly no veto.

Oh so the company that refurbishes antique mercury-based scientific
instruments didn't have to close its operation because the EU banned the
sale of these instruments, then?

tim