Brexit

Utter nonsense. It simply means, 'If you want tariff-free access to our trading club then you have to follow the club rules'. It's exactly what they have said all along, since well before the referendum, but people like you have chosen to either ignore that or think they didn't really mean it. They have been clear and consistent on this from the outset and it won't change.

 

Rubbish, They are asking from the UK rules that they have not asked of any other nation in any other trade agreement, Despite assuring us they would respect our right to sovereignty Insisting we follow EU rules is a breach of this

 

Ish. But other countries get tariff free access and don't have to follow the rules?

 

Mixed Messages because the minister on TV inferred they had technically broken the agreement by insisting we follow EU rules which was not part of the withdrawal agreement

 

But we aren't 'any other nation', are we? We are a massive economy parked a few miles off their doorstep, with the potential to seriously undermine their trade in ways that places like Canada and Australia, thousands of miles away, cannot. They've always made it clear that we could leave but that we cannot expect to continue with the benefits of free market access unless we accept their rules. And they've always said that the deal cut with Canada is a non starter for us because of our proximity and trade volume.

It's all perfectly reasonable. We either get some of the benefits of EU membership, without paying our subs but accepting their rules, or we leave, set our own standards and accept the tariffs that come with being a non member. We can't have our cake and eat it, despite what joker Johnson promised.

 

That is exactly what the UK is proposed to do and changing the text of the withdrawel agreement is an essential part of leaving without a deal, As you say the EU cannot have its cake and eat it either

 

The opposite could be said too. If EU want access to our fish etc then they have to agree to what we want.

 

you don;t as you support what boris is doing at the moment in the name of 'meaning business'. what if threatening to let migrants come over here is france's way of showing us they mean business? can't have your cake and eat it man

 

Yeah, but the problem is, what we're trying to do is illegal, as various senior Tories are pointing out. It will put our international trade deal credibility in the toilet and make us an even bigger laughing stock than we already are.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/08/senior-tories-urge-ministers-to-scrap-illegal-brexit-rule-plan?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

 

But our fishing industry is tiny. It's a negligible part of our economy. Bigging up what's left of our fishing industry will be meaningless compared to the economic damage that going on WTO terms will do if we leave with no deal.

 

the creative industries are worth tens of billions more to our economy than fish that we dont even eat over here, yet nobody on here has said a thing about how the visa rules coming in after brexit are going to add more costs, red tape and bureaucracy to this industry. which is precisely what I thought we were leaving to get rid of. most of the brexit guys genuinely dont have a clue at all

 

And yet some countries fishermen are getting worried about not having access to our waters. How much sway they have with their governments we will wait and see, but I wouldn’t under estimate the French and Spanish fishermen

 

Lets see if the government actually act illegally as you claim they have before getting your knickers in a twist over it, As yet they have done nothing

 

Our fishing Industry was worth billions until the EU took British waters away and denied our fishermen the right to fish our own waters, We had hundreds and hundreds of trawlers and now we have a pitiful handful left to us by the EU

 

Proximity or otherwise shouldn't be a barrier.

We are often referred to as a close and key trading partner because we're on the doorstep.

So why would a close and key trading partner be treated worse than a distant one. It makes no sense.

If the rules were simply that you need to adhere to their rules to get a free trade agreement (as you stated earlier but have rightly back tracked from) then that would be fine. But that isn't the rules and they're giving us worse terms than other countries, why would anyone in the UK accept that as fair?

 

I'm not sure we want our cake, we want a deal like they have given the likes of Canada where its trade with no strings attached.
We dont want alignment with the EU that's the whole point of the referendum vote we want out no strings.
I dont think the EU negotiators believe we could walk without a deal I'd suggest breaking an Internation agreement suggests were a step nearer doing exactly that.

 

Because that's a highly simplistic analysis of the situation. The EU brokers deals with non-member states around the world and tailors the specific regulatory terms individually, depending on the proximity and size of the trade involved. Because we will be the nearest, third largest and most interconnected trading partner, our ability to undercut and negatively impact the EU by lowering standards and causing a race to the bottom is much greater than that of other countries which are far away. As the EU says, 'in trade, distance matters'.

Our government naively though that we could leave, gain absolute control of our regulations etc and still get a tariff-free trade agreement. That was never going to happen and the EU made that crystal clear well before the referendum. We can have total control of our regulations or we can have free trade. But we can't have both, and the EU would be mad to give us both.

The nuanced approach to trade deals and regulations is explained on the document you can download from this site:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/documents-presented-eu-member-states-18-february-2020-trade-agreements-geography-and-trade-intensity_en