God is Haaland

You challenged a strawman. "The EEA members don't want the UK to join" is a slightly ambigious statement. You chose to interprete it as "All EEA members don't want the UK to join", but what was actually meant was "The EEA members as a group don't want the UK to join" which should have been clear after my consequetive post, because it's the only interpretation consistent with my consequetive post. But you chose to ignore it. Apparently information becomes "irrelevant" as soon as it contradicts your assumption.

Ignoring all but the very first sentence from my post doesn't make you right. And I doubt you even know what my notion is.

You didn't debunk it, you addressed it. In the case of Norway the economical benefits might outweigh the economical and legislative drawbacks, because the UK is Norway's biggest trading partner. However, in order to join the EEA all members have to agree. Btw if you're dependent on Norway, you can forget reclaiming any fishing rights.

The EEA member don't want the UK to join, because it would be diametrically opposed to their interests.

How can remainers and EU leaders be blamed? I thought the UK had all the leverage in the negotiations. Simply force the EU to do what you want.

A political choice like triggering article 50 or refusing to take her letter back.

I don't understand why everyone is so wound up about this. It completely cracked me up.

From the Yorkshirepost: "If remainers win, Britain will be punished by the EU for daring to challenge its authority. Germany may well sieze the opportunity to score back for its humiliation in 1914 and 1945."

N-n-no dude, throw your toys out of the pram and call us "the 4th Reich". The EU is going to implode.

The problem is Corbyn wants a referendum without a "no Brexit" option.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-politicians-reject-uks-norway-plus-brexit-plan

That's a good point, but removal of rights from British citizens is not the only action that would require a parliamentary vote. As far as I understand "a change in the law of the land" in general is a valid reason. For instance if an act of parliament would be changed by revoking the letter this would mean that May needs the consent of the parliament. However I can't think of any such act apart from the "European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act" itself maybe haven't found how this act would be changed.

I take that for granted. Thanks for your insight, mate.

But Maybot needs to ask parliament to give her permission to take back her letter just like when she asked parliament to give her permission to trigger article 50, doesn't she? How are the chances for her to get permission? On one hand most parliamentarians know Brexit is a really bad idea, but on the other hand they have political ambitions, too.

Hah! Found the filthy, sabotaging kraut.

https://archive.fo/CDBFf Just a little reminder this is what was promised.

At least she can dance.

It's not going to stop unless almost everyone will cancel their BTS/NBCSN/SKY subscruption and the broadcasters won't pay for FIFA world cups anymore. In other words it's never going to stop.

Conspiracy against me on gpredictor. But how would the rest be able to keep up with me otherwise?

Hamilton wasn't able to win the title in his home country even though he had a much better car. What a shame for him...

KIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!

Pointing out consequences is not the same as threatening.

Incredible how Hamilton needs team orders despite having a way superior car and all the luck you can have.

Incredible how Hamilton needs team orders despite having a way superior car and all the luck you can have.