Would it?

Not questioning the validity of your argument, necessarily, just interested to hear why/how a pre-written agreement would need to change because of a change in the EU membership

That's fair enough. I was just thinking that, even if the agreement specifically states that everything falls under the EHRA, I couldn't see why that would be an issue unless one or other party wanted to change that (and, as you say, I couldn't imagine a situation where either party would want to rock the boat too much for no discernible benefit)

I dont understand it exactly to be honest npn but i was told that if we withdraw specifically from the european human rights act replacing it with a British Bill of Rights then references to the ehra would have to be reworded. This i understand would be an issue for nationalists ...no sources i'm afraid, so you may conclude its bolash if that suits but i can see how issues could arise

Keep digging, diverting and poking. It makes you look a little stupid. You've moved from "ha typo!" to "niggling on a word" and finally to "waaah! It doesn't mean anything! Waaah!". What next?

I don't pretend to be an expert in economics, but to suggest that the Swiss cannot capitalise on markets of that size, when they have the highest GDP/capita and deal extensively in financial services ("industry"?? - actual lol) is frankly laughable. Moreover, it suggests the availability of such markets to Swiss companies for growth potential and emerging market exploitation is (conveniently, for your ideology) not a metric for trading success.

So, I take from your argument that we shouldn't be out of the EU and free to open up huge markets to free trade, because we can't maximise our benefit from it? Is that really your argument? Poor little Iceland trading with the Chinese! How shortsighted of them not to give that up and join the EU, where they would enjoy er... none of the trade deals they previously had.

By your logic, FTAs should only ever be signed by economies of the same scale, right? Shall we ask the EU why they just signed an FTA with Serbia then?

Yes, most people's day-to-day experience is exposure to the UK laws that merely rubberstamp EU law. So indeed you likely are very ignorant of it...

...Otherwise you would have presumably heard of the EU Mortgage Credit Directive (2014/17/EU) rather than the UK law that makes us "compliant". I'm sure it's a great directive though. It's prevented the great unwashed from securing cheaper mortgages. Great, eh? Don't worry - it also impacts conveyancing, but "yip" it's not even mentioned.

[Link]

Then, of course, there's the Cross-Border Conveyancing Reference Framework. Also nothing to do with the EU, no, it really isn't "dude".

A fact is a fact. Either it is true (a fact) or it is false. Good try though.

Now - are you talking about the lethargic EU trade-wagon? "not even this decade" - you're referring to an EU-China FTA, right? Or maybe that one with India that's dragged on for a DECADE? Or EU-Australia? When will that complete?

OK, let's look elsewhere. The US signed an FTA with Australia within 18 months. That's the US, with all it's complexities. Japan managed a trade agreement with India within 4 years. Malaysia managed an agreement with India in 3 years.

But fine. Let me directly address your point. I think you're trying to say that when we suddenly find ourselves cruelly cast-adrift away from Europe, all alone amongst those 160+ other countries that are also alone, we'll be "negatively affected". For **decades**!!! Gasp! Negatively affected...

By what?

The trade agreements we don't have ANYWAY with the likes of Australia, China, the US, India? What would change then? We trade with them as we do already (accounting for over 55% of our exports) under the EU: with no deal. Until we reach agreement with them (decades, yeah, right, I know... decades - the UK is special, all the examples I cite above don't take into account how we are somehow "special" and exempt from the norms).

Ah, the EU. Trading with the EU - that's going to be a problem, right? They wont want to trade with us, will they? I mean, we don't have a huge trade deficit with them, do we? But OK. In their final act, like a vengeful abusive spouse, they get nasty and make trade as hard as they can. OK. No more than allowed by WTO rules (1.5% on um... on what? remember the trade deficit). The cost to trade of that 1.5% is totally swallowed up by the huge net contributions we would no longer be paying. But there are other ways of being mean to us, right? Sure. But if they do, then they'd be breaking Article 8 of their own treaty. I'd love for the UK to take them to the ECJ for that. It would be hilarious.