[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

When the UK has exerted the most power politically, it has been as part of a coalition or alliance. In these alliances, compromises are made but the end justifies the means and overall, greater power is gained. Membership of the UN, NATO etc all reduce the UK's sovereignty but the end is seen to justify the means.

If a country like the UK is going to have any power economically then against a backdrop of China and the USA, it needs to be part of a larger trading bloc. No country apart from North Korea trades on WTO trade terms and so is not an option. Accepting a level playing field is not an onerous condition to me as we do not have high state intervention in industry and we have a high minimum wage. Canada is thousands of miles away so of course is not such a competitive threat as the UK is. Distance does matter in trade, as has oft been noted on this thread.

This is a small price to pay for the long-term drop in the wealth of the country no deal or a bad deal brings - wealth that could be put to good use - our nursing homes are crying out for more money, local councils' services in many parts of the country have been severely cut back since the Global Financial Crisis, a big question mark hangs over UK high streets and we are entering a big economic downturn that should not be worsened.

The EU replaced the Commonwealth as the UK's main trading partner and like the Commonwealth, the larger market helped create wealth. The difference with the EU was that it was a more competitive market. The UK could no longer force compliant nations to take ships full of Austin Allegros with square steering wheels made by people on strike every month. It had to raise its game and productivity and finally compete with its peers. It has stepped up to this challenge and many British services, products and companies are now once again world class.

There is no pipeline of deals that will replace the EU and the deals it has brought us. If such deals existed, the EU would have signed them already. And the basic rule of trade is that most trade is done with your neighbouring countries.

It's unrealistic to blame a larger organisation for having more negotiating clout than a smaller one. I think if you read the threads from 2016, there are warnings a plenty on this. I believe we even suggested that the Government would be rushing to blame the EU for not giving them what they promised the British electorate, although this was unlikely as the German car companies would force the EU to concede to our demands! Instead, you need to put this to those who knowingly or unknowingly mislead the country when they said "easiest trade deal ever."

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

On a more serious note,what divides us is your priority for the economy and mine for sovereignty combined with the belief that the UK can forge its wn path. Whenever the break, the challenge is the same so an extension serves no ultimate purpose. Memebership of NATO, United Nations, WTO etc all impege on UK sovereignty.

If the EU can just agree to the Canada type deal, we can all get on with it. The fact they're not agreeing is the proof of their "I'm bigger than you" bullying method. Or to put it in Barnier's words "The UK must be realistic".

The piece in red above is text not written by me. I have been misquoted.

I can respond to your other points once that has been cleared up.