I think Amsterdam wants a slice of the pie too.Unsettling isn't it ?
The proposal that a sector that comprises 80% of the UK economy, and which has a large trade surplus with the EU, and which is highly mobile is excluded from the proposed customs cooperation is basically a green-flag for Dublin, Paris and Frankfurt to come and help themselves to nice slices of the City, EU-facing service companies (like the IT and aerospace sectors) to relocate and wave goodbye to pan-European outsourcing deals.
I think Amsterdam wants a slice of the pie too.
Reading through that proposal, it looks much like a Norway-style deal but then with services instead of agriculture excluded.
As long as US republicans continue to sit on their hands giving Trump free reign to leave a trail of destruction everywhere he goes, the rest of the world has no choice but to take action while US politicians continue to be negligent in the jobs they were elected to do.
The EU are almost bound to say no - which is IMO what Theresa May wants so she can throw up her hands, say that the EU made any kind of compromise impossible and so we are compelled by the EU to have a diamond-hard Brexit.
I think you've grossly misrepresented the process by which EU legislation comes about and the extent to which it must be approved by the countries themselves.
Time and again people bemoan the unacceptable levels of Brussels red tape and yet when asked to provide actual examples, the vast majority turn out to be inaccurate portrayals of the requirements and/or little or nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with the national government.
I mean when it turns out that we in the UK could have had blue passports all along if we had chosen so to do, it calls into question the extent to which we are "ruled" by Brussels.
May was a PMer, her position on Brexit was calculated to leave her in the best political position regardless the outcome. Her goal with Brexit is to remain PM.
For convenience, the link to the BBC article again....and freedom of movement excluded
...and primacy of the ECJ
...and gradual divergence on standards
...and no financial contribution
The EU are almost bound to say no - which is IMO what Theresa May wants so she can throw up her hands, say that the EU made any kind of compromise impossible and so we are compelled by the EU to have a diamond-hard Brexit.
Given the first paragraph, when there's a dispute within the EU about the rules, the ECJ decides and that becomes the law of the land. The UK just as to follow suit. So through the backdoor, there's still de-facto primacy of the ECJ, at least in trade.
That would be similar to Norway.
I hate to be repetitive, but the only way that Brussels made it "difficult" was to insist that the UK come up with concrete proposals, something that has cost the UK government now 2 years since the referendum. The other thing that makes it difficult, and that the UK has never really thought through, is its own colonial heritage on that island west over.
The only thing that the bureaucrats in Brussels can enforce and dictate are rules and laws that have been made by and decided upon, by the Council of Ministers and our elected representatives in the European Parliament.
Oh, I think there is very much of a need. Cards on the table, and all that.
