It’s all about keeping the good and losing the bad

“I once said blithely that when I finished being an MP I was going to form an old people’s robbery group. Everybody ignores old people so we could shoplift and burgle till the cows come home” THE whole premise of the Brexit negotiation is deeply flawed in a way nobody wants to acknowledge.

If a policy is good between two EU nations, why does it become bad when a nation leaves the EU?

Why does free trade between the EU and UK become a bad thing when the UK leaves?

Why does co-operation on air traffic control become a bad thing when the UK leaves?

Why does co-operation on nuclear materials become a bad thing when the UK leaves?

The answer is, of course, that none of these things become a bad proposition for either side.

Both parties benefit from them. That’s why they were a good thing while the UK was inside the EU.

The fact that these policies of co-operation are good is the basis of the EU. Do they become bad when we leave? Of course not!

The EU’s attempt to block Britain from organising trade deals with other countries while it’s still in the EU is a blatantly vindictive strategy. Whether a policy between two nations is good or bad is not determined by the political union they belong to.

It’s either a sound, mutually beneficial policy or not. That should be the relevant question in the negotiations – where is co-operation mutually beneficial and where isn’t it?

But, for some unknown reason, the EU won’t let the UK “cherry-pick” just the mutually beneficial areas of co-operation.

It’s as if the UK is getting something and the EU is giving.

But, again, co-operation and trade are mutually beneficial. That’s why they were good, and still would be with the UK outside the EU.

In the same vein, the EU’s bad policies will remain bad if we keep them.

Stupid regulations are stupid, whichever parliament enacts