Let's probe this David Davis article that is causing a flutter of interest today - since it is as you may expect not entirely accurate 1/
2nd paragraph. We will have to follow all rules on goods (true) but the clauses on environment are typically part of an EU Free Trade Agreement. Food production is true. 2/ 
3rd paragraph, regulatory alignment will kill trade deals. No it won't. The only reason it potentially kills a US trade deal is that they want to be a rule maker as much as the EU. So we have to choose which rules we align to in areas like food 3/
Para 4. Not a functioning democracy if Parliament doesn't pass laws. But it does. So do national and regional parliaments. Inaccurate hyperbole. 4/
Para 5. EU regulations are biased towards incumbents. No, actually most regulations anywhere are biased towards incumbents, because that's what they pay for. So no competitor to Facebook or Microsoft. But none anywhere else either. And Arm did pretty well in the UK / EU. 5/
Para 6. A UK company with an invention could be uncompetitive around the world. But that's only partly about UK regulations and mostly about global regulations, including those in the EU. Unless this refers to e.g. labour laws 6/
Para 7. The IEA says it will be dangerous to be subject to regulations on which we have no say. The source doesn't fill one with confidence, but there will be truth in it. But leaving the EU will automatically reduce our influence on global rules, so what do we do about it? 7/
Anti-competitive burdens strangling UK firms. Such as? We will not be a credible trading partner if we can't change regulation. But we're already a credible trading partner, at least our businesses are. Also perhaps best not mention Japan, with whom we're losing credibility 8/
Next para, one of the least bad, as it does point out we may want to be aligned with EU regulations in some areas. The point about economic interests is contra to serious economists, the political point is probably true 9/
This is the 'oh dear he learnt nothing in 2 years paragraph'. It doesn't matter whether you have the same regulations on day 1, if you intend to change them you can't have mutual recognition and frictionless trade. 10/
Final paragraph. A series of unrelated statements. Why is being the 2nd largest services exporter a unique opportunity? What has this got to do with a revival of entrepreneurial spirit? 11/
The leave the EU argument of take back control is politically understandable, but economically risky. Hence businesses and others warning of damage. Ignoring that on the basis of tackling fantasy anti-competitive market distortions is dangerous. 12/ end
