Support NeoGAF

[PJV3]

I think people are quick to give the EU the kudos for 40 years of peace, without any counterfactual, and conveniently ignoring things like the Balkans disintegrating under the EU's nose. But mainly, the lack of counterfactual bothers me. We may have had peace anyway, without the EU.

I think people like to play daft with this argument. It is about a generation becoming sick of war and being willing to compromise and cooperate across borders. The EU is one result of that desire for peace/fear of war.

It's pretty dangerous the way people mock the idea, do people think their grandparents were just evil and modern nationalism is special. The EU disintegrating will not lead to war, it is the attitude behind people being happy to destabilise their own region that will do it.

 

[MUnited83]

Independence and sovereignty

The benefits are some nice sounding words spouted by people that don't actually understand what they mean?
That's a pretty shitty benefit.

 

[boxoctosis]

Huh? You bring this as one of the issues why the UK should leave, but it doesn't factor in your decision. How does that work?

Ah sorry. I focussed more on the bit about the Tories, as i thought you were making the point that we leave the EU, and get stuck with a Tory government for ever more. That I wasn't that fussed about the colour of our future government when I voted Leave was my (poorly worded) point.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

The benefits are some nice sounding words spouted by people that don't actually understand what they mean?
That's a pretty shitty benefit.

Were taking back control though.

Before if our government wanted to enact shitty laws on us, it needed 27 other countries to also want to enact shitty laws.

Before if another government wanted to enact shitty laws, we had the power to veto anything we didn't like.

Now, if our government wants to enact shitty laws on us, we just need the daily mail to run a story on the colour of Jeremy Corbyns tie and bam, 50 hour work weeks for all.

Now, if the EU wants to create a "don't trade with the UK" or a "fuck the UK in general rule", or even a "this rule is only somewhat shitty for the UK rule", and all we can do is sit across the ocean and print newspaper articles about how shitty the EU is.


TOTAL CONTROL. SO MUCH CONTROL.

 

[phisheep]

Let us not forget how heavily many areas of this country that have extremely low immigration voted to Leave, nor that there are significant numbers of areas with high immigration that voted to Remain. Where I grew up, in an extremely rural area, there is practically no immigration at all. Yet practically everyone my parents know locally voted to Leave.

Part of the problem here is that even small amounts of immigration in previously immigration-free areas can be very obvious. A few extra eastern europeans in a place with historically high immigration is a mere drop in the ocean, but in places like Weston-super-Mare, Clacton, Boston the (relatively) little immigration is very obvious, very recent and all tied to the EU extension eastwards.

Meanwhile, I had a conversation with a recalcitrant Leave voter the other day: "I really wish I had voted to stay. The only reason I voted Leave was to protect the NHS from being privatised, but that wasn't a good reason was it?".

No, probably not the best of reasons. It also wasn't the reason she voted Leave, as she never mentioned it at the time of the referendum (she voted Leave "so that we would keep the pound").

Oh dear.

 

[PJV3]

Part of the problem here is that even small amounts of immigration in previously immigration-free areas can be very obvious. A few extra eastern europeans in a place with historically high immigration is a mere drop in the ocean, but in places like Weston-super-Mare, Clacton, Boston the (relatively) little immigration is very obvious, very recent and all tied to the EU extension eastwards.

Meanwhile, I had a conversation with a recalcitrant Leave voter the other day: "I really wish I had voted to stay. The only reason I voted Leave was to protect the NHS from being privatised, but that wasn't a good reason was it?".

No, probably not the best of reasons. It also wasn't the reason she voted Leave, as she never mentioned it at the time of the referendum (she voted Leave "so that we would keep the pound").

Oh dear.

It's the silly arguments that annoy me more than the hard ideological ones. Like the fish, as if having unlimited rights to fish for what would be extinct species by now, is better than a smaller amount of something that actually exists.

 

[theaface]

Part of the problem here is that even small amounts of immigration in previously immigration-free areas can be very obvious.

I think what you're alluding to here, but perhaps are too polite to say, is some good old-fashioned xenophobia. Areas with little to no immigration clearly don't feel the pinch of immigrants taking their jobs or school places, but it does ruffle some feathers when Johnny Foreigner moves in down the road and talks with a funny accent.

To be fair to people in such communities, when your daily newspaper has been telling you for decades of the impending evil itching to land on our shores, commit crime and claim benefits with your hard-earned taxes, I'm not surprised the mindset is what it is. Our American friends find themselves in a similar boat with Fox News.

I'm reticent to label leave voters who cite immigration as their primary reason as automatically racist, but once you've separated the facts from the fiction on a socio-economic level, you're not left with a whole lot else.

 

[Muffin1611]

It's the silly arguments that annoy me more than the hard ideological ones. Like the fish, as if having unlimited rights to fish for what would be extinct species by now, is better than a smaller amount of something that actually exists.

I didn't know if I should laugh or cry when I found out about the bendy bananas argument.

 

[PJV3]

I didn't know if I should laugh or cry when I found out about the bendy bananas argument.

Someone, a woman I think was actually allowed to raise it on Question time, are these people fucking insane.

 

[Halph n Halph]

Of course free movement is good for the economy. Cheap , flexible labour with very few protections always is and always will be .
Making already rich and greedy bastards even richer will certainly improve the figures on an economic spreadsheet.
Don't blame the immigrants , blame the system for allowing it.

 

[axisofweevils]

Were taking back control though.

Before if our government wanted to enact shitty laws on us, it needed 27 other countries to also want to enact shitty laws.

Before if another government wanted to enact shitty laws, we had the power to veto anything we didn't like.

Now, if our government wants to enact shitty laws on us, we just need the daily mail to run a story on the colour of Jeremy Corbyns tie and bam, 50 hour work weeks for all.

Now, if the EU wants to create a "don't trade with the UK" or a "fuck the UK in general rule", or even a "this rule is only somewhat shitty for the UK rule", and all we can do is sit across the ocean and print newspaper articles about how shitty the EU is.


TOTAL CONTROL. SO MUCH CONTROL.

I think the problem with the sovereignty argument, for me, is I actually appreciated the fact that the EU kept the UK government in check, which tends to lean towards the authoritarian and have little understanding of how the modern world works. This, for example, http://www.computerworld.com/articl...tion-proposal-outrages-privacy-advocates.html

 

[PJV3]

Of course free movement is good for the economy. Cheap , flexible labour with very few protections always is and always will be .
Making already rich and greedy bastards even richer will certainly improve the figures on an economic spreadsheet.
Don't blame the immigrants , blame the system for allowing it.

The tories are going to allow that to happen anyway by the look of things, it will be theoretical control of immigration in future.

 

[RenditMan]

i love it that i can freely travel and work everywhere i want to in the eu. if i want and can find a job i can go to france, spain, italy and need to do nothing else then to register myself. that is an incredible benefit

I don't think that will change, I envisage visa free work rights will continue. There will be negotiations around the availability of in work government subsidies but that's as far as it will go.

 

[boxoctosis]

I forgot to add this one to my list of things wrong with the EU. Their treatment of Africa's farmers.


https://capx.co/how-the-eu-starves-africa-into-submission/

Anyway, i doubt many of you agree given the demographic of the thread, which is fine, but I'd at least hope you can appreciate a different perspective.

 

[SporeCrawler]

I don't think that will change, I envisage visa free work rights will continue. There will be negotiations around the availability of in work government subsidies but that's as far as it will go.

what? are you kidding me? may is already saying that EU citizens in the UK are bargaining chips

 

[Norwegian_Imposter]

I don't think that will change, I envisage visa free work rights will continue. There will be negotiations around the availability of in work government subsidies but that's as far as it will go.

Good luck with that

 

[Burai]

Of course free movement is good for the economy. Cheap , flexible labour with very few protections always is and always will be .
Making already rich and greedy bastards even richer will certainly improve the figures on an economic spreadsheet.
Don't blame the immigrants , blame the system for allowing it.

The "immigrants are bringing wages down" argument just doesn't hold water though.

We didn't have a minimum wage in this country until 1999, long before the explosion in immigration.

Indeed, if you look at the stats, the thing that tanked our wages wasn't foreign workers but the global financial crisis of 2008. Just as Nazi Germany blamed the Jews for the effects of the Wall Street Crash, so the UK right like to blame the immigrants for our wages coming down.

 

[jelly]

I forgot to add this one to my list of things wrong with the EU. Their treatment of Africa's farmers.


https://capx.co/how-the-eu-starves-africa-into-submission/

Anyway, i doubt many of you agree given the demographic of the thread, which is fine, but I'd at least hope you can appreciate a different perspective.

I'm not sure what you expect Africa and the EU to do in this regard. Does Africa need the EU and vice versa?

Could Africa compete, I think they could to a degree but the EU doesn't have to accept their trade on better terms nor does Africa need to go looking to the EU. There is only so much you can do while looking out for your own interests but not playing dirty. Some of Africa's problems do stem from others exploiting them and I'm not sure how you get out of that cycle when many African nations aren't governed properly or struggle to govern. It's an awful situation you can't pin on one issue or party.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

I forgot to add this one to my list of things wrong with the EU. Their treatment of Africa's farmers.


https://capx.co/how-the-eu-starves-africa-into-submission/

Anyway, i doubt many of you agree given the demographic of the thread, which is fine, but I'd at least hope you can appreciate a different perspective.

This is an article about the EU imposing tarrifs on certain products a non EU continent produces, in order to benefit EU countries more.

Isnt this the worst argument for deciding to leave the EU?

Ethically its shitty, but given that MAYBE a handful of people voted to leave the EU based on ethics, I don't really see how this is a positive for anyone who wanted to leave.

The EU is a terrible monster, desperate for control and ruining everything else to get its way. Apparently being on the outside of the nuclear bunker is better than being inside? Its easier to stop the nukes being fired by removing your ability to veto any proposed nuclear strike?

Again, isn't this the worst argument for deciding to leave the EU?

 

[SporeCrawler]

This is an article about the EU imposing tarrifs on certain products a non EU continent produces, in order to benefit EU countries more.

Isnt this the worst argument for deciding to leave the EU?

Ethically its shitty, but given that MAYBE a handful of people voted to leave the EU based on ethics, I don't really see how this is a positive for anyone who wanted to leave.

also given UKs own history with africa

 

[boxoctosis]

This is an article about the EU imposing tarrifs on certain products a non EU continent produces, in order to benefit EU countries more.

Isnt this the worst argument for deciding to leave the EU?

Ethically its shitty, but given that MAYBE a handful of people voted to leave the EU based on ethics, I don't really see how this is a positive for anyone who wanted to leave.

The EU is a terrible monster, desperate for control and ruining everything else to get its way. Apparently being on the outside of the nuclear bunker is better than being inside?

I just want to point out that the EU, and its economic policies are extremely destructive for certain sectors. It's not the universal force for economic good that a lot of people make it out to be.

Nor do I expect leaving it to result in the economic meltdown a lot of people are forecasting.

 

[Joni]

I just want to point out that the EU, and its economic policies are extremely destructive for certain sectors. It's not the universal force for economic good that a lot of people make it out to be.

Nor do I expect leaving it to result in the economic meltdown a lot of people are forecasting.

It has to be good for the people in it. For instance by making the EU largely self sufficient for food which helps protect food quality.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

I just want to point out that the EU, and its economic policies are extremely destructive for certain sectors. It's not the universal force for economic good that a lot of people make it out to be.

Nor do I expect leaving it to result in the economic meltdown a lot of people are forecasting.

I feel like you're overestimating the UK's worth and position moving forward. There's a reason EU folks (both citizens and officials) are taking a pretty harsh stance here; they can afford to. Y'all will be accepting whatever deal the EU lays down in front of you because it's much more important for you to trade with them than for them to trade with you.

 

[SporeCrawler]

I feel like you're overestimating the UK's worth and position moving forward. There's a reason EU folks (both citizens and officials) are taking a pretty harsh stance here; they can afford to. Y'all will be accepting whatever deal the EU lays down in front of you because it's much more important for you to trade with them than for them to trade with you.

the deal is WTO standards or norwegian model there is no reason to expect anything else.

look at this article from spiegel (The EU parliament will veto any deal if it doesnt meet this criteria)

UK will have to pay more than 60 billion euros (basically their contributions until 2020)
UK will have no benefits similar to a EU member
High priority to the rights of EU citizens in UK and UK citizens in EU.
Any prenegotiations with third countries will be punished with sanctions. UK will not be allowed to discuss trade treaties until UK is out of EU.
The peace in Ireland has priority

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausla...ament-stellt-harte-forderungen-a-1141160.html

 

[Xando]

the deal is WTO standards or norwegian model there is no reason to expect anything else.

Norway has FoM. That's not an option for the UK.

Unless May accepts FoM it's gonna be WTO or a CETA (with some changes obviously) like FTA.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

the deal is WTO standards or norwegian model there is no reason to expect anything else.

look at this article from spiegel (The EU parliament will veto any deal if it doesnt meet this criteria)

UK will have to pay more than 60 billion euros (basically their contributions until 2020)
UK will have no benefits similar to a EU member
High priority to the rights of EU citizens in UK and UK citizens in EU.
Any prenegotiations with third countries will be punished with sanctions. UK will not be allowed to discuss trade treaties until UK is out of EU.
The peace in Ireland has priority

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausla...ament-stellt-harte-forderungen-a-1141160.html

Right, I agree with this.

 

[SporeCrawler]

Norway has FoM. That's not an option for the UK.

Unless May accepts FoM it's gonna be WTO or a CETA (with some changes obviously) like FTA.

CETA is not going to happen. WTO it is then. bye bye manufacturing in UK, bye bye financial business and service sector

 

[Pancake Mix]

Doesn't the EU want the full amount before any negotiations happen? Seems like a sure way for there to be no negotiations...

Not being able to negotiate with other countries when there's pretty much no way 27 other member states would extend your presence is pretty austere and likely to be ignored if there appears to be no chance of a FTA being reached in a very short period of time.

Realistically.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

the deal is WTO standards or norwegian model there is no reason to expect anything else.

Which essentially boils down to people voting to leave because theyre "sick of the liberal elite not looking out for the people", turning the UK into a beggar walking around with a collection bowl, bowing down to corporations for business.

Our government was pissed at google and such for basically paying no taxes before, leaving the common brit to pick up the bill.

You think we have any leverage against them now? We're gonna be lowering tax rates to minus figures (figuratively) to make the UK an "attractive" place for business.

Banks are already relocating headquarters and shifting staff.

The elite will be juuuuuuuuust fucking fine and your poor people in Clacton will NOT be who the govt are catering to in order to be prosperous.

Just like before, but on a whole new level that wasn't required before.

 

[PJV3]

CETA is not going to happen. WTO it is then. bye bye manufacturing in UK, bye bye financial business and service sector

I have lost track of some of this stuff, I thought there were problems with the UK even getting accepted in the WTO, have they been sorted out yet?

 

[Xando]

Doesn't the EU want the full amount before any negotiations happen? Seems like a sure way for there to be no negotiations...

The EU wants to settle the leaving process (EU nationals, exit bill, ireland border etc) before negotiating any trade deal yes. May wants to do both at the same time which was a no go from the start.

CETA is not going to happen. WTO it is then. bye bye manufacturing in UK, bye bye financial business and service sector

In the end it will go be a FTA like CETA i think. There probably won't be enough time to negotiate it so UK will go to WTO or there will be some kind of transition deal to delay departure.

I have lost track of some of this stuff, I thought there were problems with the UK even getting accepted in the WTO, have they been sorted out yet?

Not sure what you are talking about.

UK is a WTO member
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/united_kingdom_e.htm


The biggest problem May has is the lack of time. It's gonna force her to go to WTO or cave in the negotiations at some point.

Greece 2015 was in similiar position (probably worse) and had to completely cave to the EU because it would have defaulted otherwise

 

[Pancake Mix]

The EU wants to settle the leaving process (EU nationals, exit bill, ireland border etc) before negotiating any trade deal yes. May wants to do both at the same time which was a no go from the start.

Negotiating any of that with 27 other member states though...

What a nightmare, CETA took 8 years and could once again get vetoed by Wallonia in Belgium. The EU is not a particularly mobile or effective body and doesn't do much bilaterally.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170329/07481237031/all-that-on-off-excitement-about-ceta-last-year-happening-again.shtml

So essentially, no deal is likely for anyone.

Might be wiser to take the sanctions and try to negotiate with other nations, because WTO rules are likely.

 

[SporeCrawler]

Right, I agree with this.

i should add that the EU parliament will not agree to any benefits even remotely similar to the benefits of a EU member.

 

[SporeCrawler]

In the end it will go be a FTA like CETA i think. There probably won't be enough time to negotiate it so UK will go to WTO or there will be some kind of transition deal to delay departure.

nope. EU Parliament will not accept any FTA like deal

 

[Xando]

Negotiating any of that with 27 other member states though...

What a nightmare, CETA took 8 years and could once again get vetoed by Wallonia in Belgium. The EU is not a particularly mobile or effective body and doesn't do much bilaterally.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170329/07481237031/all-that-on-off-excitement-about-ceta-last-year-happening-again.shtml

So essentially, no deal is likely for anyone.

Might be wiser to take the sanctions and try to negotiate with other nations, because WTO rules are likely.

I agree. Time is the most crucial factor. Especially for the UK and it significantly weakens Mays hand more and more as time goes on.

nope. EU Parliament will not accept any FTA like deal

That would be news for me. Any source?

 

[Pancake Mix]

nope. EU Parliament will not accept any FTA like deal

Forget the EU parliament, all it takes is one national parliament to veto since the EU doesn't seem to do FTA's entirely bilaterally, at least anymore, instead requiring approval by all member states. That is unworkable.

So negotiating with third countries instead might be the better plan. The EU can bark all they want but they don't really have an offer in mind that could be accepted by 27 member states and the European parliament that would not basically be Norway/Switzerland.

 

[SporeCrawler]

I agree. Time is the most crucial factor. Especially for the UK and it significantly weakens Mays hand more and more as time goes on.



That would be news for me. Any source?

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausla...ament-stellt-harte-forderungen-a-1141160.html

Forget the EU parliament, all it takes is one national parliament to veto since the EU doesn't seem to do FTA's entirely bilaterally, at least anymore, instead requiring approval by all member states. That is unworkable.

So negotiating with third countries instead might be the better plan. The EU can bark all they want but they don't really have an offer in mind that could be accepted by 27 member states and the European parliament that would not basically be Norway/Switzerland.

well that means sanctions then.

 

[Xando]

So negotiating with third countries instead might be the better plan.

That would open up the UK to legal issues because it's gonna be a member of the EU until march 29th.

Ignoring the possible sanctions by the EU i doubt any somewhat large market would risk getting into trouble with the EU market for illegally negotiating with the UK.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausla...ament-stellt-harte-forderungen-a-1141160.html

well that means sanctions then.

Where does it say a CETA like FTA is not possible? The only thing it mentions is that a future FTA would force the UK to keep EU norms for food and enviromental policy

 

[phisheep]

I think what you're alluding to here, but perhaps are too polite to say, is some good old-fashioned xenophobia. Areas with little to no immigration clearly don't feel the pinch of immigrants taking their jobs or school places, but it does ruffle some feathers when Johnny Foreigner moves in down the road and talks with a funny accent.

To be fair to people in such communities, when your daily newspaper has been telling you for decades of the impending evil itching to land on our shores, commit crime and claim benefits with your hard-earned taxes, I'm not surprised the mindset is what it is. Our American friends find themselves in a similar boat with Fox News.

I'm reticent to label leave voters who cite immigration as their primary reason as automatically racist, but once you've separated the facts from the fiction on a socio-economic level, you're not left with a whole lot else.

I don't believe it is that simply ascribed to xenophobia. For example, on my street there are (scratches head to remember) Iranians, Turks, Chinese, Japanese, Greeks, Australians, Filipinos, Italians - none experiencing any xenophobia whatsoever. Similarly both Bedford and Peterborough have enormous Italian populations - with their own consulates - who experience nearly no lashback, yet both voted strongly Leave. There are similar stories all around the country.

No, it isn't simple xenophobia. If xenophobic at all (and I'm not convinced that en masse it is, though obviously there is at least a minority making xenophobic hay out of it), it is specific to recent and rapid influx of eastern europeans.

 

[Pancake Mix]

well that means sanctions then.

When the alternative is reverting to WTO rules anyway because one member state is bound to veto an extension to negotiate, that might have to be how it is.

Since negotiating with the EU seems to be anguish itself and that EU rule on not negotiating at all prior to a complete and certain exit (that has already been triggered) is rather absurd, I doubt anyone outside the EU will mind any breaking of that one rule. If you don't have much of an agreement with the EU you don't have much to lose anyway, countries in that position may not care, especially if the UK is their largest European market.

 

[SporeCrawler]

That would open up the UK to legal issues because it's gonna be a member of the EU until march 29th.

Ignoring the possible sanctions by the EU i doubt any somewhat large market would risk getting into trouble with the EU market for illegally negotiating with the UK.



Where does it say a CETA like FTA is not possible? The only thing it mentions is that a future FTA would force the UK to keep EU norms for food and enviromental policy

it says that benefits similar to a EU member states will not be accepted. an FTA means basically an access ro the single market

 

[jelly]

It all comes down to the four freedoms or WTO. UK accepts them or tanks their economy. I imagine push come to shove they aren't stupid enough to do the latter but who knows and accepting the former makes Brexit completely pointless because they have the best deal with the EU right now which they want to throw away for stupid reasons and something worse.

UK are going to spend 2 years hoping the EU blink. That's their plan.

 

[Xando]

it says that benefits similar to a EU member states will not be accepted. an FTA means basically an access ro the single market

That is not the same. The EU has a FTA with south korea and they aren't in the single market (like member states).


FTA agreement != Membership of single market

Since negotiating with the EU seems to be anguish itself and that EU rule on not negotiating at all prior to a complete and certain exit (that has already been triggered) is rather absurd, I doubt anyone outside the EU will mind any breaking of that one rule. If you don't have much of an agreement with the EU you don't have much to lose anyway, countries in that position may not care, especially if the UK is their largest European market.

No one is gonna risk losing access to a market of 450m for access to 60m. That's nonsense.

 

[jelly]

No, it isn't simple xenophobia. If xenophobic at all (and I'm not convinced that en masse it is, though obviously there is at least a minority making xenophobic hay out of it), it is specific to recent and rapid influx of eastern europeans.

Isn't there an EU law which the UK could have used to stop such a fast migration from these countries. I think Germany and others used it but UK didn't for some reason.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Edit: don't want to be all doom and gloom

 

[SporeCrawler]

can you believe that david cameron who brought us this disaster is being considered as secretary general for the NATO?

That is not the same. The EU has a FTA with south korea and they aren't in the single market (like member states).


FTA agreement != Membership of single market

but an FTA is an agreement on easier access to the each others market so an FTA would be similar to an single market access even if it wouldnt be as wide reaching. in the end it would be a benefit similar to a single market access and thats being ruled out.

 

[killer_clank]

The deal certainly won't be as good as full single market membership, that much is for certain, but I think we can safely discount the idea that an FTA is totally impossible as pretty out there - South Korea and Canada have one and the UK already has the exact same regulatory standards as the EU by virtue of being a member for the next 2 years. Free trade in goods seems very easily achievable, services probably much less so but the similar regulations probably help in this regard vs the Canada deal.

Of course this will require the UK to keep to EU regulations for any goods destined for export with all this which is why Brexit is dumb. At least the PM acknowledges this now.

 

[SporeCrawler]

The deal certainly won't be as good as full single market membership, that much is for certain, but I think we can safely discount the idea that an FTA is totally impossible as pretty out there - South Korea and Canada have one and the UK already has the exact same regulatory standards as the EU by virtue of being a member for the next 2 years. Free trade in goods seems very easily achievable, services probably much less so but the similar regulations probably help in this regard vs the Canada deal.

Of course this will require the UK to keep to EU regulations for any goods destined for export with all this which is why Brexit is dumb. At least the PM acknowledges this now.

you are completely discounting the political dimensions here. EU wants UK to fail. they will take the economical hit and hope that the hit is harder for UK. why? because otherwise everybody will want out of the EU. france, netherlands, austria are already lining up

 

[Xando]

but an FTA is an agreement on easier access to the each others market so an FTA would be similar to an single market access even if it wouldnt be as wide reaching. in the end it would be a benefit similar to a single market access and thats being ruled out.

The article you posted even references a free trade agreement being the EU and UK which would force the UK to accept standards on several key policies:

Zugleich stellt das Parlament Bedingungen an einen Zukunftsvertrag: Großbritannien müsse sich an EU-Standards etwa in der Umwelt- und Klimapolitik, in der Handels- und Sozialpolitik sowie im Kampf gegen Steuervermeidung halten. Letzteres dürfte eine Reaktion auf Londoner Gedankenspiele sein, künftig mit Mini-Steuern Unternehmen anzulocken.

Quick and dirty translate for our english friends:

At the same time the (EU) insists on several conditions to a future contract (trade deal).
The United Kingdom would have to follow EU standards for example in enviromental/ climate, trade and social policy aswell as the fight to tax evasion. The last point should be a direct answer toward london suggesting to cut corparate tax and attract business

 

[phisheep]

Isn't there an EU law which the UK could have used to stop such a fast migration from these countries. I think Germany and others used it but UK didn't for some reason.

Yes there was. UK didn't use it for impenetrable reasons that some ascribe to the desire of the then-Government to import large quantities of grateful Labour-voting workers.

see here for example