Re: @Loyal Commenter
Bull but go on.
A strong argument, you've got me there.
And so the anti-foreigner zero sum argument. Trade deals are a reciprocity good. Crying there are more people on one side is stupid.
Missing my point - in such a deal, the stronger partner (and I'm using population here as a measure, but economic strneght is just as vaild) has the better negotiating position. Negotiations with the US are going to involve agreements only on things that benefit the US - we can see this with the way they are currently trying to strong-arm China (and failing).
Chlorinated chicken = bad but chlorinated salad = good.
I don't recall adovcating chlorinated salad. Nice straw man. Chlorinated chicken is not the only issue with US food safety (and in my mind not the worst). I listed some of the others, you ignored them.
Waa waa Iceland.
Well, you brought them up. Did you have an actual point?
the EU because its a supertanker with too many captains and no clue
Your opinion. Would you like to back that up with facts? You can't claim simultaneous lack of democracy, and too much democracy from over-representation.
"Iceland is a 'special case', due to their very small population" Not being 27 countries. Yup.
Nice editing of my comment there. Icalend is very sparsely populated, yes, but also has a lot of mineral, and energy wealth, somethign that they are willing to trade with China, as they are both things that they have in excess to their own needs and which China wants. Also, these are things we do not have.
Wernt [sic] you arguing for trade deals?
Nope, I beliive it is you who insinuated that we are at a disadvantage from not having a specific trade deal with China (whilst Iceland does). Are you switching your position on this, like you habitually do with your arguments?
Actually we hold one of the important global financial trading centres.
Not for long, once we've left the EU, that will go to Hamburg, Dublin and Zurich. Companies are already moving as a result of this idiocy. Once we lose passporting rights (which will happen if we leave the common market), those left in the City of London will incur costs when dealing with the rest of the EU (the world's largest financial market). Financial businesses operate on margins, they will move to where those are lowest, and this won't be London.
So why do remainers do that?
[Citation required]
I don't recall remainers harking abck to the days of Empire (I've seen quitters claiming it still exists though, seemingly thinking Britain still owns India et al)
Leaving the EU doesnt take us back in time.
When you are talking about international treaties, scientific cooperation, trade, regulatory alignment, law enforcement cooperation, and the institutions built up around all of those, it does. it takes us back to teh point 40 odd years ago when we didn't have those things. Except, of course, we also won't have ouer own institutions either, since they have become long redundant. For instance, we no longer have a whole section of Whitehall filled with trained and experienced experts devoted to negotiating international agreements. We have ($deity help us) Liam Fox instead.
stop fantasizing that leaving takes us to the 19th century.
I didn't claim that it did, I pointed out that people advocating it seem to think that the rest of the world is still in the 19th century. The world has moved on, we shouldn't be harking back to some imaginary halcyon days of empire that never actually existed, no matter how large you write it on the side of a bus.