The Single Market... Johnsons lies come home to roost

[Adi_Dem]

More jaundiced interpretation and selective observations.
Of course being members of the SM and CU concedes power to EU on the conditions of inclusion in those specific arrangements. We can't stand alone and we do need Trade agreements.
We supposedly had input into the Maastricht and Lisbon political concentration and centralisation of European power. We had PM's who had no intention of vetoing and no intention of putting anything to referendum. These were fundamental changes.
I am not delighted with all aspects of the SM or CU but economically we can't have our cake and eat it. It is what it is and given we are unlikely to change it, we are better in it than out of it.
If we do rejoin those, and further political development and centralisation of the EU then attempts to change the SM and CU, then we would have a clear choice to make about leaving those arrangements again; but it would then be a much bigger deal to vote on joining once more the whole bloated showboat and where that had sailed and was sailing to.
It depends where your belief lies.
Some believe we can influence best within and are happy to let the behometh grow in scale and reach. They believe there are voting rights and vetos that leave us still in ultimate control. They point to rules and terms and hypotheticals of their own.
Others believe we don't have to be all in, accept we will take rules on some things as we would have to with any economic agreement. They don't conceptually like the central project and don't trust in conceptual rights and vetos that give illusion of influence and security.

There's nothing jaundiced or selective about it. I am setting out what the legal position was when we were part of the EU. No hypotheticals. You and others are setting out hypothetical bogeymen about what future PMs (the election of whom you will vote on) may or may not have done with the undeniable opt outs, rights of veto and influence we carried within the EU. And on the basis of those bogeymen you say we would be better off as members of the SM and CU through which you accept we would be rule takers but argue that we would carry influence because the EU would want us to be part of it despite the avalanche of evidence to the contrary.

 

[indeedido]

And you can't separate the political union from the economic one. That is the unicorn.

Yes, you can.
You conform to the SM and CU conditions.
The Single Market is a Trade Agreement, as is the Customs Union.
There is Freedom of movement of Capital, Goods and Services...and Labour.
I don't love it, but we would be better with than without, in a black or white choice.
Any Trading Agreement with any block/country would have conditions and we would not solely dictate those.

Lisbon brought the Justice, Home Affairs, Security and Foreign Affairs elements to widen EU concept and reach. It brought centralisation and greater political union. We don't have to have all of that to be in the SM and CU.
Nor do we have to be part of something that spreads the reach of that centralisation and further concentrates political union.

(Of course the EU want us in the SM and CU. They are unlikely to change the rules to suit us, I never said they would)

 

[Adi_Dem]

(Of course the EU want us in the SM and CU. They are unlikely to change the rules to suit us, I never said they would)

You said we would have influence on economic affairs because they want us to be a part of SM and CU. I say that recent evidence directly undermines and contradicts that. We wouldn't have any influence whatsoever.

You conform to the SM and CU conditions.
The Single Market is a Trade Agreement, as is the Customs Union.
There is Freedom of movement of Capital, Goods and Services...and Labour.

And so we would cede any and all control of those conditions. We would be a rule taker to remain part of that trade agreement with absolutely no power to influence policy.

Yes, you can.

No you can't. The conditions of the single market and customs union are directly and inextricably linked to the political goals and ambitions of the EU. They go hand in hand. But even if you're right and putting to one side the fact that I see absolutely no problem with political union within the EU, it is still absolutely true to say that the very things you are worried about in terms of political union e.g. changes to the EU Treaties, joining the euro, border controls, defence and security etc are all subject to opt outs and vetoes. Compare that to what you propose which is that we are subject to all of the conditions of being SM and CU members, including regulatory alignment, state aid rules etc etc without being able to have any say whatsoever on the direction of those conditions, which as I have said cannot be extricated from the political.

 

[indeedido]

You said we would have influence on economic affairs because they want us to be a part of SM and CU. I say that recent evidence directly undermines and contradicts that. We wouldn't have any influence whatsoever.

The principles of the SM was in many ways led by Thatcher many years ago. We joined in 93.
They do want us in bot SM and CU. We wont change the conditions as they are, but would influence any further change in direction/terms of that SM.

putting to one side the fact that I see absolutely no problem with political union within the EU

And here is the crux. I know you see no problem with it and that is your prerogative.
I think you look for rationale and then call them facts and proof, when they are not; they are your values, judgements or beliefs.
On this matter we will likely always be poles apart.
I've said before that I respect the position taken by you and others. But please don't just shout down mine and others.

 

[Adi_Dem]

The principles of the SM was in many ways led by Thatcher many years ago. We joined in 93.
They do want us in bot SM and CU. We wont change the conditions as they are, but would influence any further change in direction/terms of that SM.


And here is the crux. I know you see no problem with it and that is your prerogative.
I think you look for rationale and then call them facts and proof, when they are not; they are your values, judgements or beliefs.
On this matter we will likely always be poles apart.
I've said before that I respect the position taken by you and others. But please don't just shout down mine and others.

I am not shouting anything down, I am genuinely interested.

There is zero evidence to support the notion that we would influence any further change in direction or the terms of the single market. In fact all the last 5 years does is prove the exact opposite. I cannot reconcile your apparent certainty that we would have influence in those circumstances but that we would not have used the various tools and levers of influence we had whilst a member. It doesn't make any sense.

I don't want to flog this dead horse particularly but I will just add one more thing which is that I am not looking for a rationale and the things I point to as facts and proof are, in fact, objectively facts and proof. Of course I offer opinion based on those facts as we all do but when I say that we had rights of veto, opt outs and a very special set of membership terms that afforded us great influence it is because factually and legally that was absolutely the case. Those things are not values, judgements or beliefs but cold, hard facts.

 

[indeedido]

but that we would not have used the various tools and levers of influence we had whilst a member. It doesn't make any sense.

Johnson wanted to be excluded from some the rules of the existing SM, that was unlikely to happen and didn't.
Ignoring what is already in place and agreed is not at all the same as changing the agreement itself.
We would have influence on other members who want us in the SM, re future changes to that SM/CU.

And yet still you do flog that "dead horse" using exactly the same arguments you must think I either don't read, or understand.

 

[Laughing]

Johnson wanted to be excluded from some the rules of the existing SM, that was unlikely to happen and didn't.
Ignoring what is already in place and agreed is not at all the same as changing the agreement itself.
We would have influence on other members who want us in the SM, re future changes to that SM/CU.

And yet still you do flog that "dead horse" using exactly the same arguments you must think I either don't read, or understand.

I would tend to agree, if you are a trading partner you have some influence. Not as much as being wholly in the club of course, but still some influence.

I also agree with Adi that we did have a powerful position within the EU, relative to others, commensurate, I guess, with our economy.

 

[Laughing]

I just realized, I offered absolutely nothing in my last post, apologies.

 

[Adi_Dem]

We would have influence on other members who want us in the SM, re future changes to that SM/CU.

Despite there being no evidence to support such an assertion.

And yet still you do flog that "dead horse" using exactly the same arguments you must think I either don't read, or understand.

I’m not the one repeating anything. You keep telling me that I am relying on values, judgements and beliefs and presenting them as facts. That then necessitates setting the record straight and reminding you that only the things that are facts so I ever point to as such.

 

[Adi_Dem]

I just realized, I offered absolutely nothing in my last post, apologies.

That’s not true. It was a balanced reply.

 

[indeedido]

Despite there being no evidence to support such an assertion.

There hasn't been a change in the SM for us to influence. There is therefore no evidence of anything, other than that as members we could not choose not to respect existing conditions and yet stay within it.
We would have influence in future proposed changes to the SM, whether in the EU or not.
You believe not, I believe we certainly would.

 

[indeedido]

I just realized, I offered absolutely nothing in my last post, apologies.

On the contrary, you offered perspective which is always useful.

 

[Adi_Dem]

There hasn't been a change in the SM for us to influence. There is therefore no evidence of anything, other than that as members we could not choose not to respect existing conditions and yet stay within it.
We would have influence in future proposed changes to the SM, whether in the EU or not.
You believe not, I believe we certainly would.

Yes and so given that difference of opinion I tried to look at some facts around it using Norway as the most obvious example. Having done a bit of reading it is absolutely evident that Norway enjoys quite a bit of influence as part of its various agreements - in some cases more influence than the UK did. On that basis I have to concede that point. Your view is more likely to be right than mine.