But they are not wrong either, yes they get the privilege of the 4 freedoms at a cost of following EU rules and paying for it
Contrary to a Common Market where each member makes its own rules and accepts the rules of the others, a Single Market has 1 single set of rules, and for those to be made it requires a single regulator, which costs money: but in return the members can reduce/get rid off their national regulating agencies.
A little detail that was almost completely forgotten by the UK, to the point it started these negotiations with the idea it could just freeload on the SM: not just for goods, but for everything. That didn't go very well now did it? Which is why at each turn of events, the UK peeled off a layer of 'unfettered' access until it settled for a very thin FTA wich does little but secure the massive daily flow of all sorts of goods it so much relies on to continue to flow without a significant cost increases from WTO tariffs it would have to impose!
That’s the problem with pro-remain, you only see the economic argument Brexit is more than just about economics
No I don't, and I have great respect for those who think the price is worth paying.
What I have a problem with it the fact that Brexit was sold to the public as making economic sense too, while it doesn't.
Could that possible have been because of some fear not everybody who voted leave was so keep to pay the price for it?
And could that explain why BoJo now signed up to a sell-out deal which brings the UK very little over no deal, other than avoid the need to impose WTO tariffs on most goods imported to the UK from the EU, and thus have British consumers start having to pay very noticeably for their choice in the referendum?
A while ago pro-remain were telling us we could not have that unless we signed up to dynamic alignment in perpetuity for that type of access to the SM , now it’s a great thing both sides have zero quota/ tariffs without signing up to EU rules hypocrisy at its best.
First of all, you may have noticed the deal is only covering the part of trade where the EU is having a trade surplus (goods), whereas it leaves out the parts where the UK had a trade surplus (services/finances)... While the agreement is applicable to 'both sides' as you say, it is to the overal benefit of 'one side' only: the EU.
Also, you may have noticed that in return for no guarantee on 'perpetuity' from the UK, this deal is forever depending on the UK's systemic alligment with the EU...
If the UK does not move in line with the EU in future, the deal gets unilaterally modified to erase any competitive advantage that may have been gained.
Compare that to the Norway deal where Norway has to move in sync, or to the Swiss deal where the Swiss can decide not to move and then the EU has to make the tough call to end the whole deal at once, or just accept the Swiss rebellion. In the UK case, the EU has the unique ability to just change the modalities of bilateral trade under the deal, so it can return the modalities back to their advantage as it is now going to be the case!
I wouldn’t say nothing in the deal, the UK held firm to its main red lines for sovereignty, no overarching supremacy of the EU over the UK Parliamentary & Judicial sovereignty.
Yet that was automatically returned to the UK upon completion of the article 50 process!
The UK doesn't need this trade agreement to gain that: it is already automatically secured in just 2 days from now, deal or no deal?
If I hear you talk, you'd think Brexit hadn't happened yet, and the transition period of article 50 is still valid?
It’s the EU who are unhappy with the current trade agreements with the Swiss ands it’s the EU that want to end multiple agreements
Who told you that if I may ask?
if you follow a bit the debate in Switzerland, you'll find both parties to be very unhappy about the complexity of their current bilateral relationship, which is why they are renegotiating. One of the things the EU doesn't like is precisely the fact it can not unilaterally change the modalities of the bilateral trade when there's a regulatory market distrotion occuring; it can only accept any Swiss deviation or terminate the whole deal. In that respect, the flexibility of the deal with the UK really forms a template for all future arrangements with the other EU sattellite countries.
Negotiating with yourself is maybe something the UK is happy doing as evidenced by the events of he past 4 years, but it's not a habit of either the Swiss nor the EU.
Both have some clear goals for amendments set out, based on objective issues experienced with the current set up.