Sorry, but all Brexiters were telling porkies, not just Vote.Leave and it was these porkies by all Brexiters that persuaded the undecided to vote for Brexit. You can't distance yourself from those 'unofficial' campaigners.
Now you're moving the goalposts. Do
I qualify as a campaigner because I chatted on this forum? Is it
all people who voted leave that you accuse of lying? Voters made bold claims and lied to
themselves?
Actually don't answer that. A more interesting question is, why didn't the Remain side manage to convince the leavers? If all the leavers are under-educated sheep they ought to be easy to influence, no? The leavers had the government on their side, the 'experts', the NGOs, the celebrities, the facts of the staus quo... they had everything. Why did they fail?
As John said, you're stretching the truth a bit when you say you chatted on this forum. Like all other Brexiteers you made wild and ludicrous claims and assertions.
I think Emily Thornberry coined the most appropriate phrase "pop-up party". Boris was exactly that. He popped up, made wild and ridiculous claims and promises. Now that he's required to stand by those promises, what does he do? Pops down again. Leaving Gove to fight for PM's job. Gove can then distance himself from Boris's vacuous promises and lurid comments.
If that was the tactic prior to the result, it would be a calculated cynical attempt at manipulation. It wasn't the tactic prior to the result because they didn't expect to win.
However it is still a calculated cynical attempt to distance themselves from Boris's vacuous promises and ridiculous accusations and assertions.
Those who repeated those empty promises and silly comments are also trying to distance themselves from the central character(s) who won the referendum for them with their daft assertions and silly promises.
Boris is now poison and will have to limit his career ambitions to journalism.
"Access to the single market requires acceptance of all four freedoms."
In that case even the EU spokesmen need to be more explicit and say
free access to the common market. As anyone can see, the whole world has access to the common market, it's just not free.
Let me explain the terms to you:
Access to single market means all of it, bilaterally without limitations, tariffs or customs and compliance with all regulations.
Trade agreement mean restricted trade with limits, exclusions, customs, administration, etc. Any products/services must comply with relative regulations, standards, etc..
WTO conditions means no agreement but restrictions, limits, exclusions, customs, administration and tariffs. Products and services must comply with regulations, standards, etc.
Canada, Australia
et al have trade agreements. These take several years to negotiate. Often because what is included and what is excluded, and the quotas, restrictions and limits etc. must be explicitly defined. We currently have access to the single market, as do Switzerland, Norway, etc.
We can have access to the single market which will include free movement of people etc. Or we can have a trade agreement with restrictions, limits, exclusions, customs, administration, etc. It will take more than a couple of years to define. The two year exit process is about the divorce, not the future access arrangements.
Or we can have no trade agreement, other than that conferred by WTO which will also include tariffs.
