[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Kushan

Of course I recognise that it'd be bad for the UK. I recognised that leaving the EU in any capacity would be bad for the UK, but we wanted that sovreignty, right?

You can't tell remainers who were screaming until they were blue in the face that "this is a terrible idea and the UK will suffer for it" to get over it, then do a shocked pikachu face when it turns out that this whole thing is bad for the UK.


This was highlighted way back in January, before anything was signed. Shouldn't have signed it if it had such a legal flaw in it.

The "no deal is better than a bad deal" REFERS TO ANY FUTURE DEAL. Certainly not one that is only meant to be in place for a matter of months, and is meant to have an END. Gets quite tedious and ridiculous when the Remain side of things constantly misattributes comments to the wrong deal etc.
Link

What happens on 1 February 2020?
When the United Kingdom leaves the European Union on 31 January 2020, after full ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement, we will enter into the transition period. This time-limited period was agreed as part of the Withdrawal Agreement and will last until at least 31 December 2020.
...
The EU and the United Kingdom will use these months to agree on a new and fair partnership for the future, based on the Political Declaration agreed between the EU and the United Kingdom in October 2019.

From recent Barnier speech

Yet the UK government's position would lock out Ireland's fishermen and women from waters they fished in long before Ireland or the UK joined the European Economic Community in 1973.
And of course, the fishermen and women of many other EU countries.
That is just not acceptable.
We fully understand and respect that the UK will become an independent coastal state, outside the Common Fisheries Policy.

It is 1982 UN Conference of the Laws of the Seas that decided that States were precluded from making historic claims to fishing rights in other countries. The EU is insisting on breaking that UN Treaty/Law(or whatever).

Without a long-term, fair and sustainable solution on fisheries, there will simply be no new economic partnership with the UK.

That was NOT in the Political Declaration, quite the opposite.

British proposals on road transport would allow British truckers to drive on EU roads without having to comply with the same working conditions as EU drivers.

Nonsense as usual. Drivers driving on EU roads have to follow EU rules, JUST AS ANY OTHER NON-EU COUNTRY DOES. There are wider driving rules set that include non-EU countries such as Turkey and Russia. Currently if you drive in only in GB, then you are subject to GB rules, but if your journey includes the EU, then you are subject to EU/AETR rules for that part of the journey. Nothing wrong with that approach, and nobody apart from the EU is suggesting otherwise.

The UK's proposals on air transport would allow British airlines to operate inside the EU without having to respect the same labour and environmental standards.

Are EU airlines the only ones flying in EU airspace? Of course not.

In this area, as in others: without a common framework on state aid, the UK government would be free to hand out subsidies at will.

We've quite a long way to go to match Germany's levels of state aid.

Link

The EU measures how much money countries spend on state aid, as a proportion of their economy.
The UK ranks very low down, spending just 0.38% of its gross domestic product - the total value of all good and services produced. This is far lower than Germany (1.31%), France (0.76%) and Poland (1.59%).
Therefore, it seems likely that EU single market rules are not the only thing limiting state aid.

Level playing field? Not even within the EU.

While Germany makes up for about a quarter of the EU’s GDP, it accounts for some 52% of the total value of the emergency coronavirus state aid cleared so far, Commission data shows.

Continuing with Barnier speech.

If English farmers and industrials are no longer bound by high standards on water pollution – wouldn't they gain a decisive – and unfair – cost advantage?

How likely is it that we would widely diverge from EU standards?

We have no issue with regulatory divergence.

Really? Since when?

It is normal that the UK wants to set its own standards and rules.
But if these serve to distort competition with us, then we have a problem.

Does the EU insist on EU standards and rules for all trade deals? Does Vietnam have it's own internal standards and rules set by the EU?