plodder wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:52 am
But it does reinforce the stereotype that the EU is obsessed with silly trivial rules.
In reality, the EU is standing firm on key principles of trade, which we would apply if we were on the other side of it. The rules were clearly stated from the start, and the EU has a history of sticking to such rules, not bending them in negotiation, as was pointed out at the start.
The key principles are:
(1) Trade deals have quid pro quo - you don't get the bits you like (free trade in sausages) without giving something back (eg, full alignment to EU standards, including the compliance system - there's a good reason the EU has a compliance system, which is that countries often try to cheat). I have not heard any mention of what we are offering in return. We seem to want a one-way deal "because it's sensible", "because that's what always happened", even though it was we who chose what new rules we wanted to abide by.
(2) You don't get to pick and choose the bits of the single European market you want to be in. It's a bulk deal and comes with obligations. Otherwise lots of countries would leave and escape the obligations that allow the EU to work.
NI is the UK's problem, not someone else's. The government took actions that were bound to aggravate it, under the rules clearly set out from the start. It was a difficulty pointed out from the moment it was seriously suggested we might leave the SEM. And now we have done it and got the inevitable consequences that were pointed out from the start. Why should the EC now help us out, without getting something big back in return?