(Original post by Burton Bridge)
You seem to be in your world, instead of trying to belittle a POV you cannot understand try listening. I'm not against a future relationship with Europe. Even rejoining again however we need to leave first or the will of the electorate was not only not carried out but both sides completely lied!
I would read Sir Ivan Rogers recent comments re that approach, he suggests it is , to paraphrase, handicaping all future negotiations re trade.
"If the supposed route to prosperity for post Brexit “global Britain” lies through a global
lattice work of preferential trade deals, how can one possibly seriously argue that the
ONLY bloc with which one does not need a free trade deal is the one with which one
does easily the largest volumes of trade?
And if a preferential trade deal with the EU is, in practice, essential, then you obviously
gain nothing by tumbling completely out to WTO rules, and then having to try and
scramble your way back up the hill to a preferential deal,
under huge time pressure,
notably in those many sectors and issues on which a resort to WTO rules gives you
You just hand the perfect negotiating hand to the other side. Listening to Ministers and
ex Ministers now loudly asserting that going out all the way would give us all the cards
in a free trade negotiation with the EU leaves one not knowing whether to laugh or cry.
Let me just repeat it in case you are wondering whether this can possibly be right or
whether I am spoofing.
We are now being flogged the proposition
that in order to move from a deep preferential
agreement - the supranational political, juridical and enforcement aspects of high you
deplore, but which gives you much the best trading terms with the bloc, above all in the
sectors in which you are highly competitive - to a less deep, but normal EU preferential
agreement which gives you substantially better access than WTO terms, the best route is
to go all the way out to WTO terms first.
Because that will give you the whip hand in negotiations with a bloc for which the
absence of any preferential deal covers a vastly lower proportion of its trade than it does
And the bloc would therefore come begging for a new preferential deal, drop completely
its demand for the backstop, accept that technological and administrative solutions to
the border suffice, when they have repeatedly previously made clear they cannot, and
settle for much less than the money that the U.K. Prime Minister had already agreed to
pay if she got an acceptable Withdrawal Agreement – which she now publicly agrees she
The reality is that you would in exiting to WTO terms reset the baseline for future FTA
talks in the worst possible place for U.K. negotiators.
We would start them as a bog standard third country with no preferential deal in place,
not as a former member of the club seeking to argue, notably in goods, that the baseline
should be everything we wish to retain in friction free trade about the world we had as
members. In other words, by deliberately going to “no deal and WTO”, you reset the
baseline from which we all start as MFN (most favoured nation) trade, and have to build
everything up from that tabula rasa base."