Not at all. The statement is in fact explicit on the subject: "Subject to any transitional arrangement that may be contained in a possible withdrawal agreement..."
Norway has such an agreement with the EU. The UK is welcome to put such an agreement in place as well, but appears to be opting not to. Lacking any other agreement, after the exit date the UK will have, at its own request, no legal ties to any EU institutions so why should this one be considered any different?
Yes at all. There's something unnerving about the way the remain side of the debate all engage in this mafia boss style of low key gas lighting. Let's just not acknowledge the fact that you cannot merely just have have certain things easily. Suddenly rules and technicalities become extremely important to the EU.
Something else it is reminiscent of is joining a cult such as scientology. All reassurances and promises on the way in ... but when you try to leave... So in some sense of course Norway has X and Y. They gained these things whilst increasing integration with the EU.
Yes I know. Leave voters are less educated and somewhat racist statistically.
Rules and technicalities are extremely important to the EU. The EU exists by virtue of a set of treaties between the member countries. Legally binding documents that require the EU to adhere to said rules and technicalities.
They allowed favored nations to flaunt fiscal rules for decades and cannot get their accounts signed off. Plus if some rule doesn't suit then it can get changed. It's not meaningless what you are saying but it's hardly the whole story. In this example (I don't even particularly care personally) they could easily grand father existing .eu domain holders. It would not threaten the existence of the EU to do that, or undermine the integrity of the institution. In fact it would reassure all other holders that they have bought into a stable system.
The general EU position on rules is also deeply undemocratic in the sense that the unlimited commitment was not properly communicated or admitted to at the time all this was put into place.
You know which country got most of the exceptions, right? The UK. They got a discount on their membership, they're not in Schengen, not in the Eurozone. They got nearly everything they wanted out of the EU.
No, schengen was another irreversible progression that we opted out of like the euro. The discount is because the rules so heavily favoured continental farmers. The UK was always the 2nd biggest net contributor after Germany (and top 5 per capita), but without the influence to match it. This is despite being told we are 20% less productive than the french ...
What we wanted out of the EU was a consensual free trade arrangement not to support an expansionistic political project that ultimately wants to disolve it's constituent nations.
What do you mean: "without the influence to match it"? The UK has always been incredibly influential in the EU. A lot of the things the EU implemented, were things the UK wanted.
Well that is subjective, but traditionally the leaders have been France and Germany and there has been an animus against the UK and its interests.
Then if you break it down, there is the question of eurosceptics. Where is their influence? Have they ever successfully reigned in the EU or got it to reverse anything? They are represented in the parliament but it is a toothless/show organisation.
Well, the EU was founded specifically around France and Germany. The UK did not want to join originally. They only joined later, and were for a long time considered the third most important and influential member, before Italy.
Rules and technicalities have always been important to the EU. Nothing about this is gas lighting; the UK wanted out[0], so that's what happens. It's pretty clear they never really considered the consequences of leaving, and listened to lies about what those consequences would be. Gas lighting is a serious issue, but this isn't it.
[0] Or at least, the people currently in charge of the UK government want out. According to polls, many of the people of the UK have by now acquired a better sense of the consequences. The government seems unwilling to listen to them, though.
Rules and technicalities have always been important? Because the EU is a technocracy and not a democracy in essence. Government is meant to control the rules not the other way round. In anycase this is a weak line given the EUs inconsistent stance on this. Preaching a morality for others that they don't themselves subscribe to.
The reason I said gas lighting is because of the lack of acknowledgement of another point of view, and essentially 0 concession or charitability. We can have different values, and if you are honest you have to allow for the fact that that means I can value the bad in the EU project greater than the good. But instead you just say, no it's stupid, it makes no sense to want to leave, rules are rules.
The population are marginally agreeing it was a bad idea (something like 48%-42%) because of the difficulty of the process and the embarassment of the national government. That is it may not be worth our while getting out. To me however it proves that you should get out since it is not a consensual or honest project. If it had been I wouldn't be wanting to leave ...
Not at all. The statement is in fact explicit on the subject: "Subject to any transitional arrangement that may be contained in a possible withdrawal agreement..."
Norway has such an agreement with the EU. The UK is welcome to put such an agreement in place as well, but appears to be opting not to. Lacking any other agreement, after the exit date the UK will have, at its own request, no legal ties to any EU institutions so why should this one be considered any different?