[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

If I go along to my bank and ask them for loan of a quarter of a million pounds at a 0.1% interest rate and HSBC bank laugh me out of town do I get to write to trading standards and call them bullies?

No. They’re bigger than me and frankly it’s not worth their while engaging with me on such a preposterous basis. I’m not the biggest fan of uncontrolled and unregulated capitalism (as everyone on the forum knows) but I fail to see why some cry “foul” at capitalism in action.

We did vote for Brexit as is our sovereign right to do so. But nobody owes us a single dime as a result. We chose to carve out our own path. If that’s too challenging then that’s an entirely expected outcome of entering negotiations with an observably unrealistic set of objectives.

You see (or rather everyone else should be able to see) that what you've said exactly makes my point.

You cannot reasonably apply the bank analogy to fundamental issues of national sovereignty. You must know that, jfman but you don't want to run with my logic.

You write of an "unrealistic set of objectives". To recap, those (UK) objectives are to negotiate the trade agreement separately from other matters such as fishing rights. Overarching those objectives is defence of the notion that we must preserve our sovereignty.

If the only thing we can achieve is to protect our sovereignty, then there will be no trade deal.

The matter of bullying arises when the EU (Barnier) tells us directly that the EU is bigger than we are - by corollary the EU's terms or nothing.

A Brit should consider that unreasonable even if that Brit also says, like you, what else would you expect from them.




---------- Post added at 22:47 ---------- Previous post was at 22:42 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

My perception is that you're seeing the situation through one filter; that of sovereignty; whereas the central issue is the single market.
Allowing neighbouring countries unfettered access to the single market at no cost and with potential cost advantages through weaker employment rights and environmental standards is not in the EU's interests.
It's so important that such enforcement can't be left to chance and needs to be legally enforceable. So any impact on sovereignty is a side-product, not the key intention.
The differentiation of neighbouring countries is important due to the gravity of trade. The Adam Smith Institute has a good explainer of it here.

Then let me correct your view of my perspective.

It seems to me that Remain supporting people see this through the lens of regret that economic matters trump sovereignty.

I'm sure there is economic downside to leaving the EU. The British public who voted for it know that. To them, sovereignty is the key point and a trust that the UK will build on its skills and abilities to rise above any economic downturn.

Your second paragraph defends the EU's position.

No Brit should be doing this.