Quote from: popcorn1 on May 04, 2017, 09:24:15 AM

This is NORWAY..

Norwegians voted no to the EU in a heated referendum in 1994 and we are not regretting it.

According to the most recent poll, 72 per cent are opposed to Norwegian membership of the EU, with only 18.1 per cent supporting it and 9.9 per cent undecided.

Norway has experienced unprecedented economic growth since the no vote in 1994.

Annual growth in GDP has been significantly higher in Norway than the EU average.

There has been a strong increase in foreign investments in Norway, more than doubling in the last 10 years alone.

For decades, Norway has enjoyed easy access to the EU market.

Since 1994 through the European Free Trade Agreement (EEA) that makes Norway part of the Single Market.

We believe Norway would be even better off by replacing the EEA agreement with a bilateral trade agreement with the EU.

The EEA agreement is still very much preferable to EU membership. The EEA agreement encompasses less than 10 percent of EU law making. (Source: EUR-lex and annual EFTA-reports)

The EU is both a single market and a political and economic union.

The EEA agreement includes Norway in the Single Market, but we are still independent from most of the European Union. In addition, and more importantly, Norway still has a sovereign right to refuse the incorporation of new EU legislation.

Norways monetary policy is decided BY Norway FOR Norway.

Again, you appear to be supporting my point rather than attacking it. Norway is a fantastic example. You should probably vote for Corbyn, then. Corbyn favours 'Norway model' post Brexit:

Quote

The Labour leader indicated that access to the single market, similar to that which Norway currently has, is the relationship Britain should seek after it exits the European Union

Jeremy Corbyn has indicated a Norway-style model would be the best option for Britain when it leaves the EU.

Following a speech at the headquarters of financial data company Bloomberg, Mr Corbyn said in an interview with Bloomberg TV: "We're looking very closely at the Norwegian model. Not using their model, it's learning the lessons from Norway."

Mr Corbyn said the Labour Party will be pressing for full access to the European single market for goods and services but with some conditions.

We should not be falling back on a World Trade Organisation-only trade deal with Europe as that would potentially risk damage to the public finances and significant job losses, he said.

Norway has full access to the free trade zone but must pay into the EU budget, accept its laws and accept the free movement of the bloc's citizens.

Theresa May has indicated that the referendum result means that controls will be placed on EU migration. The EUs negotiators have said access to the single market without free movement of people is impossible.

Norway recognised the absolute importance of maintaining access to the single market. Incompetent May has indicated on numerous occasions that she'd happily sacrifice access to the single market if it meant she could enact more of her exploitative policies to rob the average Brit of both their money and their rights. Plus she's going to fall flat on her face with her piss-poor negotiating stance that doesn't actually involve any negotiating and mostly consists of blindly making stupid demands that are never going to be met.

Further, Norwegians living in the UK think that Corbyn's policies don't make him some sort of hard-left radical and he'd actually fit pretty well in Norway's own Labour party:

Quote

As a Scandinavian who has spent more than a decade living in Britain, nothing has made me feel more foreign than observing the current Labour leadership election. From his style to his policies Mr Corbyn would, in Norway, be an unremarkably mainstream, run-of-the-mill social-democrat. His policy-platform places him squarely in the Norwegian Labour Party from which the last leader is such a widely respected establishment figure that upon resignation he became the current Secretary-General of NATO.

Yet, here in the United Kingdom a politician who makes similar policy-proposals, indeed those that form the very bedrock of the Nordic-model, is brandished as an extremist of the hard-left and a danger to society.

So who is right? Is the Norwegian Labour movement some dangerous extremist group that unknowingly has occupied the furthest leftist fringe of the political spectrum? If so, a casual glance at the UNs Human Development Index would suggest that Norway certainly has not suffered as a result of successive Labour-dominated governments. Or is it, perhaps, that the British medias portrayal of Corbyn, and by extent his policies are somewhat exaggerated and verging on the realm of character assassination rather than objective analysis and journalism?

And before you decide to start waffling on about immigration again, because I know you can't help it, you should know that when Theresa May was Home Secretary, she ended up overseeing the biggest migration surge in UK history:

Quote

Do you know which home secretary oversaw the highest levels of net migration in UK history?

It was Theresa May, who in 2010 promised the electorate that she would cut net migration to below 100,000, but instead allowed the biggest inwards migration surge in history, with net migration peaking at a huge 336,000 shortly before she was appointed as Prime Minister by her Tory chums.

You might be inclined to disbelieve me because you haven't heard much about this in the media, but there are reasons you haven't heard it. Last year, under pressure from Theresa May's allies in the Tory party the Daily Telegraph spiked an excoriating article about Theresa May's track record at the Home Office.

There are people who really don't want you to know how badly Theresa May handled the immigration situation when it was her remit, and they're the same kind of people who spread lies and misrepresentations about Labour's immigration policies too aren't they?

Theresa May's immigration policy is arbitrary and stupid

Politicians plucking arbitrary numbers out of thin air and making that number their golden objective is as old as the hills. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did it with their ridiculous 3% borrowing golden rule (you know the rule that drove the expansion of rip-off PFI economic alchemy schemes and was quickly jettisoned to lob £billions at the insolvent "too big to fail" banks).

Theresa May's 100,000 target wasn't just an arbitrary and ridiculous objective that drove lamentable policies, she ended up overseeing the biggest migration surge in UK history.

Two of the dreadful policies Theresa May introduced to try to repress immigration ended up driving away economically beneficial migrants like university students and tens of thousands of non-EU citizens who are married to UK citizens,

Driving away university students in order to juke the immigration statistics has seriously harmed UK universities because foreign students are a massive net benefit to the UK economy. International students contribute £25 billion to the UK economy and support some 200,000 jobs.

Using discriminatory rules to force tens of thousands of British families into exile because one of the adults is a non-EU citizen is also ridiculous. Only an intense bigot would try to argue that migrants who are married to a British citizen are the kind of people the government should be clamping down on. If they're married to a Brit they're highly likely to speak English, assimilate well into British culture, work and pay tax in the UK, and stay here instead of taking their earnings out of the country to return to their country of origin like a lot of migrant workers do.

Despite cruelly wrecking the lives of tens of thousands of families and damaging UK universities with her dreadfully ill-considered immigration policies Theresa May still missed her arbitrary 100,000 target by miles, becoming the Home Secretary who let in more migrants than any other Home Secretary in history!

She set a stupid arbitrary target, introduced terrible policies to try to achieve it, and spectacularly failed by her own measure of success.

So yeah, you haven't really got a leg to stand on if you insist on shooting yourself in the foot.

Any more points you'd like to raise that only serve to prove you wrong?