The "deal" on offer from the EU is only meant to be an
interim one. It's about the phase between leaving the EU and any ongoing future deal. It is totally irrelevant to discuss what people voting leave or remain wanted. The only pertinent aspects of past voting intent, are anything that would be ongoing. The Leave side would almost certainly have been against the backstop, and possibly some of those that voted Remain.
Again the Leave side would almost certainly have been against aspects of the Political Declaration that goes with the Withdrawal Agreement, and possibly some of those that voted Remain.
Eg
Quote:
79. The future relationship must ensure open and fair competition. Provisions to ensure this should cover state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environmental standards, climate change, and relevant tax matters, building on the level playing field arrangements provided for in the Withdrawal Agreement and commensurate with the overall economic relationship.
|
Would Labour be happy with the EU limiting UK State Aid?
It means whatever measures the EU applies that hamper business(well they don't seem to have any designed to help or reduce costs), we would have to apply them as well. Is that acceptable, especially considering we wouldn't have a say on them in the first place. Does anybody seriously think that "open and fair competition" isn't whatever that is set out by the EU, and NOT a 2 way process where the UK could pass a law that reduced or even increased business costs and the EU has to follow suit? It's one-way traffic.
Any proposed 2nd referendum about the "deal" could only be about the Withdrawal Agreement, and that ends Dec 31st 2020. So what would be the point of that? A vote for the "deal" is still essentially a vote to Leave at the end of next year. So what would those on the Remain side vote for? You'd have to have a THIRD referendum to vote on any proposed post-2020 deal. Just gets even more silly than it is already.