Hear what you are saying Essex, but it would be really useful to break down what that estimated £7.4 billion cost covers.
Is it because they have to meet tougher environmental standards - if so, I say that's a good thing and outlay they should be making to benefit us all , not cut corners to avoid costs.
Is it because they have to meet employment standards - if so again good, because it is protecting workers rights, not cut corners to avoid costs
Is it because of product and manufacturing standards - again can't see any problem with meeting minimum standards agreed across a whole continent that is recognised across the world, meaning we can trade with anyone. EU product standards also apply to anyone wanting to manufacture goods/provide services and sell into our market don't they? So again consumers are protected against sub-standard goods and services.
The CAP I will give you. Outdated, bloated, biased and left to fester for far too long. I think all member states should be ashamed of their intransigence to reform it (and glad you recognise the contribution that HMG can and should make to that
). Moreover, walking away now removes any chance we ever had of influencing its reform when (not if) it comes. And as for Dyson - man speaks with forked tongue...quite happy to criticise the EU and persuade us to leave while merrily taking money from it and relocating manufacturing to Asia.
If individual laws are incompatible with EU rules on ENTRY to the EU, then I can understand the country having to cede power on them (and again, it is about transposing and implementing directive - rarely is it about Directly Applicable Regulation). After all, if I join the local squash club, I don't expect to be allowed to wear black-soled trainers on court, even if they are the most stylish in the joint.
Are there any examples where
existing members are told they have to change an existing domestic law because the EU don't like it? Only by agreement of all member states will a new directive be developed and implemented. Each member state would need to (or bloody well should) undertake an Regulatory Impact Assessment to see what is affected and how, which informs they way they negotiate and vote during the development and drafting phases. They have a say from the outset if they are already in the club.
Working within a collective such as the EU is ALWAYS going to be about compromise. Nobody ever gets their own way (although Trump is trying damn hard), it is all about cooperation and collaboration and I see the bigger pan-Europe, pan-global picture as of far more importance to us in the longer run.
Economics of the EU - is an interesting one. I need to read up more on that I admit but my basic understanding chimes with what you say. We of course do also benefit from EU funding (many places like South Wales and the South West, which ironically voted for leave - would you trust HMG to continue that funding?)
I was also interested to see that Italy were at loggerheads with EU over agreeing their budget. Why? basically because the Italian government wanted to make their deficit bigger and the EU wanted them to control spending - who's being the sensible one there?