The Senior Tory MP has called on both the government and Labour to show courage and admit that Brexit has failed
Staying in the single market for goods was one of the brexit options that no one got to vote on, aka the Norway model, that would have prevented the vast majority of brexit issues
Staying in the single market for goods would have certainly helped with many of the logistical issues business and consumers have faced due to Brexit. But remember that the UK/EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement has at least allowed for tariff-free and quota-free trade in goods since Brexit - not as good as the single market, but at least not the worst possible outcome for goods trade.
The UK, however, is a service-based high-skill economy. From a growth and employment and competitiveness perspective, it’s trade in the service sector (and ultimately re-entry to the single market for services) that is the big prize we need to shoot for - where the Brexit agreement fell woefully short and which the Tories seemed clueless about the importance of it in the negotiations.They invested huge amounts of political capital in fighting over arrangements for fishing (which accounts for less than 0.1% of the UK economy) but basically never went in to bat on services (which accounts for about 80%).
Sure, but there isn’t really a single market for many services even within the EU anyway. If you’re French, you can’t buy car insurance from Italy or have a German bank account. And those are the upper reaches of the services economy. It goes without saying that you can’t have a cross-border haircut or swimming lesson. The vast majority of services are extremely local by nature.
As for the City, there’s still plenty of Chinese and Arab money to launder so I’m sure they’ll be fine.
Btw, I say all this as a staunch remainer. Brexit was dumb, but it’s free movement and trade in goods where most of the effects are felt.
If you’re French, you can’t buy car insurance from Italy or have a German bank account.
They literally can and do. It’s just so seamless within the EU that people who aren’t interested may not even realise they’re dealing with a company from another EU country. Being able to sell services cross-border without extra requirements (on top of those applying EU-wide) is the whole point of the single market in services.
While technically true, the number of formal and informal barriers to a single market for retail financial services in the EU is vast. Passporting is mostly just useful for corporate/wholesale business.
I assume services was left out because it’s the area where the UK has areas of competitive advantage like fintech, deeptech, life sciences etc.
The EU would have demanded dynamic alignment of regulations for any inclusion and that would negate any advantage that could be gained.
The first test will be AI regulation, the EU has opted for a horizontal approach whereas UK is going for a vertical one which has received a welcome response from the AI industry
Competitiveness counts for little when there are barriers to our competitive service sector even selling their services in the EU.
Competitive in financial services? Doesn’t matter, as we don’t have passporting anymore, so British banks and insurers have to set up on-shore locally-regulated entities to sell their services in the EU.
Competitive in professional services? Doesn’t matter either, as there’s no longer any mutual recognition of professional qualifications.
Etc.
Should’ve never left
How much influence does this guy have?
He’s a fairly high profile Tory backbencher and respected enough for his fellow Tories to have elected him as chair of the defence select committee.
He’s not going to change government policy but the fact Tories like him will speak out on this is the sort of thing that will hopefully lower the bar to other sensible Tories starting to find their voices again. It’s always easier putting your head above the parapet if someone else has done it first.
The EU is a corrupt totalitarian regime run by banks for their own benefit. The reason we have private finance initiatives which force public services to pay high interest rates is because of EU laws preventing borrowing from central banks.
Sigh. You’d have thought the Wagner Group troll farms would be busy with other things at the moment…
Why doesn’t the EU stop doing protectionism and reform itself?
You can see what the problem is every time you see the EU cookie notice.
The cookie banners you see everywhere are an unintended consequence of GDPR, and new legislation is underway to make them less of a hassle. The intention of GDPR and it’s laws were 100% required and welcome.
GDPR is an EU law, and cookie warnings existed before GDPR anyway, as a result of EU law.
Didn’t cookie laws come in before GDPR. They are pretty pointless as most people don’t understand what they’re saying yes to and most people who do already had their own ways of dealing with them.
They also force you to use cookies if you don’t want to see them over and over.
Most browsers have security features that you can turn off. One option is allowing all cookies without being asked. If you are happy with giving every tom, dick or harry access to your PC then you have the power to do that.
Yes but when you see a cookie warning from a website it stores your choice in a cookie. So if you clear your cookies out then you see the warning again the next time you visit the website. So you don’t have much choice but to accept all cookies. Each website uses differently named cookies, so can’t simply solve it. There are extensions which try, like “I don’t care about cookies” but they break things and they have to have a list of websites. There will always be some which aren’t on there. The EU could have stipulated what the name of the cookie should be, or stipulated that it should be a browser option like “do not track”, but the EU is a massive corrupt bureaucracy.
So do not clear your cookie cache out? This is nothing to do with the EU. It is your personal choice. You can even use a VPN to make the internet view you as someone from another continent.
The EU did not implement this to make money, which is what you are implying when you say they are corrupt. They did it because there are scumbags out there, and they are abusing the data you give them when you view their site. There is a good reason to not give out your name and address when you go online, but if you are happy to do just that then there is a million and one ways to achieve it.
I used to clear my cookies on exit to prevent tracking. When the EU introduced its warnings about tracking I was forced to accept cookies to avoid the warnings, that’s my point. The warnings achieve the opposite of their intended purpose. Besides which, sometimes you have to clear cookies for other reasons, or you might use a different browser or recreate your profile.
I wasn’t implying anything with my corruption comment. I was just saying the EU is corrupt, because it is.
The law: You can’t collect data without consent
The intent: Sites stop collecting data without consent
Sites interpretation: So I ask for consent right? right??
