AndrewJB wrote:I’m sure you understand (apparently our government didn’t) that in leaving we can’t end up with all the good bits without any of the responsibility?
I saw this comment and it is a common one. Literally I suppose I agree with it, all and any are quite unequivocal words so yes, that would be unreasonable.
However, if we were to say “are we able to trade off many different things with each other for mutual benefit” that would not be unreasonable.
For examples we simply need to look at relations between two developed nations of varying sizes such as the USA and Canada, or Australia and New Zealand.
There are many examples where cooperation in various areas such as security happens independently from trade, and then when trade is looked at in isolation there are many quid pro quo’s without the smaller country staying within the orbit of the big one.
One example is that the US and Canada have mutually agreed in NAFTA that 75% of car parts must be made within the block. That clearly benefits the US. Does it cost Canada or Mexico much? Probably not. So it is not beyond the wit of man that the U.K. and the EU can agree a trade arrangement where both sides get plenty of what they want, with a standstill in the meantime. Unrelated stuff like the ECJ need not, and should not feature. The NAFTA line on regulation is “The Parties intend to maintain their respective central regulatory coordinating bodies, within their respective mandates and consistent with their law.”.
That’s why May’s deal was a shocker, and it need not have been. The EU simply saw her coming.