Because they are entitled to under a fair trade arrangement.
This is exactly what he was talking about in his article.
(26-11-2018 12:32 )Charlemagne Wrote: [ -> ]He says that we should negotiate this just do it.
And if Europe knows their best interests they will reciprocate this.
I haven't looked at the Abbott article yet, but this is generally the reason why I tend to ignore the most dire predictions about what 'might' happen if we exit.
(The latest is that dickhead David Lammy saying that Britain will contract by 3.9% a year if we leave without a deal. The truth is nobody can predict what will happen ... predicting it to one decimal point just sounds daft!)
When there is nothing left to negotiate, when the dust settles, and when all the emotion is out of the equation, Britain and Europe will each do what is in their economic self-interest -- and that tends to favour free trade and 'frictionless', if not free movement. It is certainly in neither party's interest to be unnecessarily punitive toward the other. It helps Britain to have a prosperous Europe as a neighbour and vice versa. It will sort itself out.
It's like a divorcing couple.
While the divorce is underway and the lawyers are involved, they will claw, bite and scratch over every piece of furniture. But after a couple of years, when the
divorcing is over and they are just
divorced, they'll be spending Christmas and New Year together as friends.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still a Remainer ... but economics has nothing to do with it.
^ I agree with all that...
Expect the bigger your buying power the better deal you tend to get with countries you trade with. No one has yet explain to me why on average a third party country is likely to give a better deal to us than a big trading block like the EU?
(26-11-2018 12:32 )Charlemagne Wrote: [ -> ]Britain can set their own rules,they can say for instance, that they will not impose any tariff or quotas on EU produces and they will recognise all EU product standards. Therefore there wouldn't be a need for border control between the EU & Britain.
That statement appears to be incorrect. Norway has a free trade agreement with the EU, along the lines described above, but there are still border checks between Norway and its bordering EU member Sweden.
(27-11-2018 12:21 )Glenn Miller Wrote: [ -> ] (26-11-2018 12:32 )Charlemagne Wrote: [ -> ]Therefore there wouldn't be a need for border control between the EU & Britain.
That statement appears to be incorrect. Norway has a free trade agreement with the EU, along the lines described above, but there are still border checks between Norway and its bordering EU member Sweden.
Norway chose to impose higher duty on some items, including alcohol and tobacco. Therefore they need border checks to stop the smugglers.
HP, I love the humour
^^ Nice try HP but that bridge is between Denmark & Sweden
(26-11-2018 12:32 )Charlemagne Wrote: [ -> ]Britain will not impose any tariff or quotas on EU produces and they will recognise all EU product standards.
....
Therefore there wouldn't be a need for border control between the EU & Britain.
....
And there should be free movement of people from the EU into Britain
But giving up any sort of regulation would be an odd way for Britain to "take back control" as the Leave campaign promised.
What happened to taking back control of our laws and our borders?
And what happened to "no more freedom of movement", another Leave campaign promise?
Since the Tony Abbot plan doesn't deliver on anything that the Leave campaign promised, what is the point of it exactly? Why not just stay in the EU instead?
