Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99
I think that your assumptions are faulty - based on a mindset derived from dogma. You assume that our current position is permanent. It is not, it depends on the needs of the economy and the desires of the electorate in future elections.
|
Now you’re sidestepping the question.
Whether or not there’s a move to rejoin the EU in future, that is not in view now. All that is on the table for the next 5-10 years is the question of improved trading relations with the EU and the US. Given that we are not going to rejoin the EU during this parliament (or the next - convince me otherwise) then the question is, what form of trade deal could we make with either EU or the US that would necessarily involve us pivoting away from one of them?
The only form of trade deal that would necessitate that would be a wholly self-defeating regulatory alignment that committed us to adopting regulations on domestic production even on goods that were not for export, and/or restricted us from importing into our market goods that would be banned in another. And the only way that state of affairs could possibly come about would be if we were looking to sign up for some version of association with the EEA that most likely dropped us back in a customs union with the EU.
Sorry but you still haven’t come close to defending your assertion that we have a choice to make, per your earlier statement that a “trade deal with a US on a Trump trajectory that diverges from the need to trade efficiently with the EU requires a clear choice of alignment.”
No trade deal requires such a choice to be made - only negotiations for membership of the EEA would cause that. And it is not necessary to join the EEA in order to work out a sensible trading arrangement with the EU. Which is just as well, because that’s clearly not on the table.