Quote Originally Posted by JamesWales View Post
I think this is fair enough and true. 'Control' of course encapsulates immigration too.

There is of course nothing wrong with wanting greater regulation over immigration either, although we all know that the reasoning behind that isn't always friendly.
Control is a powerful word which fortunately for the architects of the Brexit project can be elusive in identification.

All trade and bilateral agreements, by their very nature, cede control.

The EU agreement allows tarrif free movement of goods as long as the UK does not weaken rules sufficiently around health, environmental standards or workers' rights. There is an arbitration process but the ECJ is still the legal body which determines whether the rules of the EU's single market have been breached.

New deals with countries such as India are likely to weaken our current immigration rules. Any ambition to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership will come with minimal adjustment to its current rules and regulations and disputes will not be settled in UK courts. We will effectively be a rule taker at the outset. Any future US deal could force the weakening of our agricultural standards and force conflict with the EU agreement.

Although analysis by the government's own advisory body shows the loss of EU membership is is insignificantly compensated by any new trade deals those who favoured Brexit have every right to champion this brave new world. Just as people who favoured Remaining in the EU are likely to be comfortable with trading sovereignty (give or take a bit of chlorinated chicken).

Just remember that everytime a deal is signed a bit of that much valued "control" disappears as a result.