'all the fuss' LMAO

Yes we would get all of the Regulations and Directives and Decisions and the rest. To be 'aligned' means that our rules have to be the same (or as near as damnit the same) as theirs, because if they are not then we are not aligned.

We are not going to have, for example, a Financial Services Rules (EU customers) and Financial Services Rules (UK customers), Product Safety Rules (UK customers) Product Safety Rules (EU customers), Employment Rules (UK citizens) and Employment Rules (EU citizens). That way madness lies.

Davis's 'alignment' vs 'harmonisation' is pure semantics designed to pull the wool over people's eyes.

But the brilliant thing is that we will no longer be able to influence how these rules are developed.

In practice we'll do what we did at school when cribbing a mate's homework. We'll change the words around a bit and pretend that it's our own work (taking back control!) and hope that we don't change anything too important that gets us bad marks (hauled before whatever tribunal we agree to submit to in this scenario - probably a specially convened version of the ECJ with a token British judge).

And even better, any free trade deal we do with a third party will also need to reflect this requirement for alignment, as we won't be able to have goods floating around the UK that could be exported to the EU unless (i) they are EU/customs compliant (ii) we are otherwise prepared to indemnify the EU against claims arising from non-compliance.

And as for free movement, do I need to bother with the ridiculousness of what alignment would mean?

It's all terribly brilliant. Control eh? Lovely.

I cannot stress enough how people like Davis simply do not understand how the EU or its laws work, and how much consistently ignore their own advisors on such matters. And these people are negotiating the single most important issue for this country in (probably) our lifetimes.

They are chasing a unicorn.

Posted By: CWC, Dec 5, 17:54:42