Comments by "Nigel Johnson" (@nigeljohnson9820) on "UK bill to revoke EU laws could have 'negative impact on trade', Brussels warns" video.

Anything that reduces imports from the EU is a good thing. Hopefully the laws will be repealed selectively, keeping those that benefit the UK.
2
@taintabird23 it really depends on which laws are repealed. The EU cannot expect the UK to buy EU imports if they refuse to buy UK products. Trade with the EU just undermines the ability of UK producers to supply the UK market. At the moment that is what is important.
1
@taintabird23 I think you will find other countries, which do not use EU standards, still manage to sell to the EU. They simp,y test their export products to EU standards. The UK can use EU standards as a tariff barrier to imports, by adopting its own standards. The EU has usurp international standards and made them EU standards for this very reason. Many international standards which were once agreed by independent sovereign nations are now imposed by the EU and its directives. The UK is in a position where it can use this unfair system against the EU. The EU will find it much harder to justify the cost of meeting our standards, than our manufactures will in meeting the EU's.
1
@alanwhiplington5504 that is why brexit has been seen to fail. The uk government has be myopic and lazy in taking advantage of rhe opportunities presented by leaving the eu.
1
@alanwhiplington5504 no the EU standard are not the world standards. The EU took control of many international standards in an attempt to force EU membership in a closed shop. It is a tactic often used by criminal organisations, such as the mafia. The UK need only to enhance the EU rules to make EU products none comp,isn't with the UK market.
1
@parametr it only needs to import those raw materials that geology and geography have denied it. What the UK should never have done is sold the means of production to foreign owners. The UK should sell what it produces, not the means of production. The situation can be reversed by applying regulations that make owning UK assets less attractive. Certainly that is what must be done with public utilities, infrastructure, and critical industries. By definition an investor expects to take out far more than they put in. In the case of foreign investors, what they take out is lost to the UK economy, never to return. A classic example is the privately owned monopoly water companies. The pay their shareholders far more than they have invested in the UK, and both amounts are funded by the UK customers. The same applies to many other uk industries that have fallen into foreign ownership. Defenders of this iniquity and taking UK tax payers for fools. The ability to apply UK regulations, as opposed to EU regulations, can make such ownership far more onerous, making it easier for the UK to regain control, and nationalise where necessary. Saying that the UK government has not done this, just confirms that the advantages of credit have not be used.
1
@taintabird23 I did not say they ignored EU standards, though China does, I said they meet EU standards, while maintaining their own, for their home market.
1
@taintabird23 their is an advantage, it protects your home market from EU imports, it is something done by the US, China and Japan, to name but a few. China really does not respect the EU standards, CE marking exports to the EU, where the CE Mark just indicates Chinese export, and not EU safety tested. The EU is a huge market in which to sell. It is not one to be allowed to compete with the home market. This is the un-level playing field that the EU likes to impose on those with which it trades. Allowing a competitor to control the standards of your home market is not good business, and is why the UK industrial sector did so badly while it was a member of the EU. It will be even worse now it is out. That is why the UK must again set its own standards.
1