On 19/05/2017 12:15, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
James Harris wrote:
My guess is the deal we end up with won't be better than before all
this nonsense started. Most likely worse in some ways. But designed to
satisfy those who talk about sovereignty and other such meaningless
things.

Yes, the EU deal will be worse than now. The EU will insist on that. But
the question is how much worse. And whatever EU deal we get we will have
been freed up to build our own trade links. That's the big economic
prize of Brexit and is where future generations will derive their
wealth. Britain will go back to being an international trader, following
the formula which made the country rich in the past.

Good grief. More eternal optimism.

Not at all. Logic and reference to the past.

Trade deals are so interlinked no major
country is free to set up new ones just like that. Which is why
negotiations for a deal between the EU and US have been going on for so
long.

I keep hearing Remoaners saying "making a trade deal takes a long time.
Look at how long the EU takes". Its slowness is a good reason to leave.

For example, the EU has been thinking about a trade deal with the US for
decades but is in no particular hurry to get it done. By contrast,
Australia cut a trade deal with the US in under 2 years.

Alright, they had few potential causes of conflict. But deals can be
done where there is political will.

Some examples:

http://pensites.com/politics/article...ke-trade-deals



Do you not realise that if we have a free trade agreement with the EU,
then any goods coming into this country from another agreement (that you
think could happen) would then have free access to the EU? Of course with
some things easily identifiable like say a make of car, you could control
that. But for others, impossible. Would be a smuggler's charter.

How is that different from rules-of-origin issues that are dealt with by
countries around the world?


--
James Harris