I have a feeling that of the British Remainers who whine about the "integrity of the single market", maybe only half of them would attempt to give a coherent answer as to what that actually means. All of them would be wrong.

/1

Do they think tariff free access is a breach? Because if so they should take a look at any number of FTAs the EU has done.

Do they think it means circumventing non-traiff barriers?

If so, why and how? Our laws are currently exactly the same because of the Great Repeal Bill.

/2

So that means any good produced in line with our own regs would be saleable into the EU. And when divergence occurs, we could treat it like any other nation - if you want to sell to them, you have to meet their standards. Why is that an issue?

/3

If they mean that mutual recognition cannot continue, fine, but why? Mutual recognition forms a part of many FTAs and the EU has several MR agreements outside FTAs, including with Australia. /4 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/international-aspects/mutual-recognition-agreements_en

Does it mean they do not want to be unfairly outcompeted in trade rules or other regulations I.e. "level playing field" (misnomer of the generation)?

This is the most egregious of all the arguments. It's premise is that it cannot "allow" sovereign nations to lower their.../5

...standards to the point where they have an "unfair" advantage. Firstly, what does an unfair advantage mean when talking in terms of competition and the sovereign right to regulate one's own industry? The UK would still have to meet standards of any importing market. /6

It might mean things like employment rights and health and safety - these aren't rational/honest concerns and that "unfair advantage" exists already in many EU countries. E.g. compare employment rights incl. Minimum wage in the UK with Romania, Poland etc. /7

We generally have higher standards than the EU average and are often the highest standard. The idea standards will plummet in the near future, again, is just not honest/rational.

/8

Furthermore, meagre standards in places like China and the Subcontinent reveal these claims against the UK as the cynical nonsense they are. Even inside the EU, it wasn't ever going to be the UK who needed to keep up with the "field". /9

Does the EU claim that any other non-EU nation breaches EU "integrity" by governing its own industry? Why is the EU and its UK-based propaganda wing fixated on this idea that the UK shouldn't be allowed to do so certain things independent of the EU? /10

It all goes back to the central fact that Continuity Remainers and the EU do not think the UK should be allowed the freedom it voted for. The same can be said of state aid rules. For better or worse, state aid is a tool for a sovereign nation. /11

No restriction on that inalienable right should be levelled by any other country nor a supranational bloc to which we no longer belong. The idea the EU would govern such things in China, Australia, Japan, or Canada is rightly unthinkable. /12

Again, it comes down to a lack of acceptance that the UK is now in favour of self-governance. The EU and a surprising amount of otherwise intelligent people are unable to grasp this elementary concept and would see any such acceptance as the EU making "allowances".../13

...rather than simply interacting with the UK like a sovereign nation. I wait in anticipation for the EU to approach China with its proposals to regulate their employment rights and restrict subsidised industry in the name of the "integrity of the single market". /14

There is no "integrity" involved in the complaints about the single market. We do not want to eat and have our cake, we simply want to keep the EU's grubby hands out of our kitchen while we bake (sorry). No LPF agreement is tolerable. No deal is so much preferable to the.../15

...alternative that why we are still at the negotiating table when the EU will not back down (and have made that clear) is unknown. The second a deal is announced, skim every line of text looking for the sell-out because I'm 99% sure a deal can't be done without one. /16

Thus, in conclusion, circling back, rounding up, to finalise, to bring to a close, tell anybody who mentions "integrity of the single market" to DO ONE.

Thank you for reading #JakesSundayBulletin and apologies again for the baking metaphor, it needs some work.
/END