The concept of the necessity to stay in the Single Market should be substituted with its true counterpart: in reality all the Brexit campaign was founded on two pillars represented by Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage.
Farage promised to block mass immigration.
Johnson promised a tirade of new trade deals with the rest of the world.
Both promised that Britain would “take back control” on immigration, trade, and all leglislation concerning the british citizens and would be a representative Democracy where the citizens – subjects to her Majesty – would elect the members of the Parliament, have the power to remove them at any elections and would therefore decide the British laws.
So much that “take back control” was the motto of the campaign.
The Single Market stands in the way of all the promises: even the one of a global Britain, in fact the so called “Access to the Single Market” is a sort of marriage, if you are in the Single Market you cannot strike new trade deals with other countries outside of the EU; while the USA or Australia or Tonga don’t want the “exclusive” which means that you can strike a trade deal with Tonga and then also with the USA independently from Tonga – Tonga doesn’t care – if you are in the Single Market you are blocked from striking new trade deals with other countries.
As for immigration we have spoken enough.
Take back control means to take back control, it’s the Single Market the real problem, it’s the Single Market that institutes the overnational Court. Come on, everything the Leavers said in the Referendum campaign are not just hindered, but are totally blocked by this Single Market’s affiliation.
Boris Johnson said: “we want a global Britain” “We’ll strike new trade deals with the Commonwealth, America, India, China” If you quit the EU but not the Single Market you cannot do anything of the kind. So, what are we talking about? And then, even the USA don’t want such a monogamic commitment, you can strike a trade deal with the USA and then you are free to do another with another country the USA may not be interested in striking a trade deal with. In reality the Single Market’s affiliation is very limiting.
Everything is blocked by this Single Market not only as for the immigration issue. This is why I think Theresa May meant with her sentence “it’s useless to talk about hard or soft Brexit” that Brexit can only be what we call the hard Brexit, otherwise you’re not free to do anything. Moreover as John Redwood says about his experience as Single Market Minister, the EU attaches too many things to the trade, if you want to trade inside the Single Market you must give them control on your legislation which thing the other countries don’t do, so much that trade seems to be just an excuse to grab political and now even military power on your country. And this is probably the case.
Boris, apart from Farage and the immigration issue – that remains anyway a big part of the referendum campaign promises outside of any ambiguity – how can you keep your promise of a “global Britain” staying in the EU Single Market? The Telegraph can pretend not to have understood but I heard Theresa May saying: “It’s inevitable it’s a hard Brexit”.
In the new trade deals, please provide that there’s no institution of a superior extra territorial High Court.