Brexit discussion thread II

First Up · 29-08-2017 07:24AM

Peregrinus wrote:

So, the UK may want a trade deal under which the EU admits UK goods as if they had been produced in the EU. (Certainly, that's what UK manufacturers would prefer.) And, to get that, yes, they'll either have to clone the EU regulations relevant to the goods concerned, or apply them by reference.

And as you say, compliance will be checked every time a UK shipment crosses an EU border, unless they continue to adopt and enforce EU standards.

And some Brexiteers still seem to think it is all about trade "deals". Hopeless.

Peregrinus · 29-08-2017 07:45AM

First Up wrote: »

And as you say, compliance will be checked every time a UK shipment crosses an EU border, unless they continue to adopt and enforce EU standards.

Well, you can have intermediate positions. Both sides could agree, say, that their widget standards are sufficiently similar that widgets from one country can be admitted to the other without inspection. And they can agree that, to sustain this, each side will consult with the other before amending their widget standards so that, if possible, they can agree continued mutual acceptance, and, if not, at least they'll have advance notice of the need to introduce an inspection regime.

First Up · 29-08-2017 08:37AM

Peregrinus wrote:

Well, you can have intermediate positions. Both sides could agree, say, that their widget standards are sufficiently similar that widgets from one country can be admitted to the other without inspection. And they can agree that, to sustain this, each side will consult with the other before amending their widget standards so that, if possible, they can agree continued mutual acceptance, and, if not, at least they'll have advance notice of the need to introduce an inspection regime.

You could, but there's at least 5,000 items in the SITC and Harmonised Codes. Who do you think has the time or apettite to go through each and all of them and set up a system to monitor changes?

Peregrinus · 29-08-2017 09:10AM

The UK would, at least potentially.

Their opening position will be that all that stuff will be transposed into UK law, and will continue to apply. Obviously, post-Brexit, they'll be free to change any or all of it but they won't do so (presumably) just for the hell of it; there'll be a policy formation process in which proposals to make changes will be put forward, considered, refined and then either approved or not approved. Only then would a new regulation be made adopting a modified standard.

It's not rocket science to include a step in that policy process that, where the proposal relates to the widget regulations, the policy formation process includes notification to and liaison with the EU authorities, so that they can consider whether the proposed change has implications for continued acceptance of UK standards.

On the assumption that the UK benefits from having its widget regulations accepted in this way, they have an interest in making the system work, so designing their policy process to address this aspect is not an onerous demand.

Zubeneschamali · 29-08-2017 09:14AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

they won't do so (presumably) just for the hell of it;

That's what people said about the Brexit vote.

First Up · 29-08-2017 09:28AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK would, at least potentially.

Their opening position will be that all that stuff will be transposed into UK law, and will continue to apply. Obviously, post-Brexit, they'll be free to change any or all of it but they won't do so (presumably) just for the hell of it; there'll be a policy formation process in which proposals to make changes will be put forward, considered, refined and then either approved or not approved. Only then would a new regulation be made adopting a modified standard.

It's not rocket science to include a step in that policy process that, where the proposal relates to the widget regulations, the policy formation process includes notification to and liaison with the EU authorities, so that they can consider whether the proposed change has implications for continued acceptance of UK standards.

On the assumption that the UK benefits from having its widget regulations accepted in this way, they have an interest in making the system work, so designing their policy process to address this aspect is not an onerous demand.

But new products are being created all the time and processes are being continuously modified. As an EU member, the UK benefits from the wider EU standards system. Once outside it, it will have to prove compliance every time. How are EU Customs supposed to know when the UK has changed or modified a standard, or introduced something new? UK goods will get exactly the same scrutiny as goods from anywhere else outside the EU.

A large percentage of trade is in components and semi-finished goods, that form part of complex supply chains. The Single Market has enabled those chains to develop across borders as goods move without hindrance. Slow that down and you risk losing your place in the supply chain.

These issues and specific examples are being put before the Dept for Brexit team on a daily basis by hundreds of UK companies who know that their business in the EU is in real danger and so far the Brexit boys haven't come up with any answers.

Enzokk · 29-08-2017 09:30AM

I see the visit of Theresa May and a business delegation to Japan is going well. There will be no discussions on a trade deal until Japan have some progress on the EU deal (still lots to sort out) and until the relationship between the UK and the EU is sorted.

But Japanese officials say their priority is completing the deal with Brussels, while negotiations with Britain will be difficult until there is clarity about its future relationship with the EU.

UK hopes dashed for swift Japan trade talks

Then we have the Japanese telling the UK to get their act together as their companies and investments is affected by the uncertainty being caused by the UK government.

Japanese officials will tell Theresa May to end the "sense of crisis" around Brexit as she flies in for trade talks on Wednesday.

Yasutoshi Nishimura, deputy chief cabinet secretary, said he wanted the UK’s divorce with Brussels to be conducted in an orderly manner to avoid any disruption for Japanese businesses operating in the UK.

Japan to tell Theresa May to end 'sense of crisis' around Brexit during Prime Minister's trade trip

It seems that the strategy for trade talks from the UK with countries that have agreements with the EU is just to ask to have the same agreement and replicate it for the UK. An admirable strategy, but I feel there are a couple of flaws in that plan. Surely trade deals are negotiated on what the countries, or areas, can provide each other. Surely the UK cannot offer the same benefits as the whole of the EU, for it to receive the benefits of the trade in return?

Peregrinus · 29-08-2017 09:37AM

First Up wrote: »

But new products are being created all the time and processes are being continuously modified. As an EU member, the UK benefits from the wider EU standards system. Once outside it, it will have to prove compliance every time. How are EU Customs supposed to know when the UK has changed or modified a standard, or introduced something new? UK goods will get exactly the same scrutiny as goods from anywhere else outside the EU.

A large percentage of trade is in components and semi-finished goods, that form part of complex supply chains. The Single Market has enabled those chains to develop across borders as goods move without hindrance. Slow that down and you risk losing your place in the supply chain.

These issues and specific examples are being put before the Dept for Brexit team on a daily basis by hundreds of UK companies who know that their business in the EU is in real danger and so far the Brexit boys haven't come up with any answers.

Sure. But new widgets have to comply with the existing widget regulations, just as at present.

If a brand new product, a wodget, gets invented, then the EU is going to have to frame wodget regulations. The UK will then have to decide whether to adopt similar regulations and press for mutual acceptance, or plough its own furrow, wodget-regulation-wise, and accept that UK wodgets will face a barrier to entry into the European market.

I take your point that the wider the classes of goods/products for whcih the UK seeks this approach, the more complex it becomes. But the narrrower the classes, the less benefit to UK producers and the more the cost of Brexit is. So there's no easy route to peace and prosperity here. But that's the inevitable outcome of the fact that Brexit is a really bad idea.

Zubeneschamali · 29-08-2017 09:37AM

Enzokk wrote: »

It seems that the strategy for trade talks from the UK with countries that have agreements with the EU is just to ask to have the same agreement and replicate it for the UK.

It doesn't hurt to ask.

Water John · 29-08-2017 09:41AM

No, but it looks pathetic. Asking for something you know will not be available, loses you credibility, but if you have brass neck, and a superiority complex, it doesn't matter.

Peregrinus · 29-08-2017 09:45AM

Water John wrote: »

No, but it looks pathetic. Asking for something you know will not be available, loses you credibility, but if you have brass neck, and a superiority complex, it doesn't matter.

It's worse than looking pathetic. Under such a strategy you can't possibly end up with better trading terms than the ones you just shredded, and you may well end up with worse if the other countries decides no, it's not in their interests to give the UK separately what it was willing to give the EU as a whole.

Basically, you're putting your third country trade terms at risk for no good reason. The upside, apparently, is that you get to humiliate yourself. Or something.

blanch152 · 29-08-2017 09:57AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK would, at least potentially.

Their opening position will be that all that stuff will be transposed into UK law, and will continue to apply. Obviously, post-Brexit, they'll be free to change any or all of it but they won't do so (presumably) just for the hell of it; there'll be a policy formation process in which proposals to make changes will be put forward, considered, refined and then either approved or not approved. Only then would a new regulation be made adopting a modified standard.

It's not rocket science to include a step in that policy process that, where the proposal relates to the widget regulations, the policy formation process includes notification to and liaison with the EU authorities, so that they can consider whether the proposed change has implications for continued acceptance of UK standards.

On the assumption that the UK benefits from having its widget regulations accepted in this way, they have an interest in making the system work, so designing their policy process to address this aspect is not an onerous demand.

You assume an equal relationship between the UK and the EU. The EU is 27 countries, they will collectively decide on the widget regulations, the UK will have to adopt them without any consultation or influence on the decision.

Otherwise the UK will lose foreign investment.

Sam Russell · 29-08-2017 10:06AM

Let us look at a particular example.

The EU, a few years ago changed the regulations wrt vacuum cleaners so that their efficiency as air movers was specified rather than their power consumption, with inefficient vacuum cleaners banned.

This was a green energy action, to save power use as over the whole EU, the difference was significant.

At the time the market was flooded by low quality, poorly designed, but cheap, models from China. This was met by upproar from the Daily Mail and the red tops - 'How dare the EU prevent us buying cheap vacuum cleaners' etc. There was a run on cheap low quality vacuum cleaners before the deadline.

The EU, afair, has brought in regulations regarding lawn mowers, and phone chargers.

A similar post Brexit situation would be handled by the UK Government by:

1. Copying the new regulation into UK law and enforce it.
2. Holding the new regulation up for ridicule.
3. Ignoring the new regulation.

I think I know how the Brexit crowd would react.

Nody · 29-08-2017 11:00AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Let us look at a particular example.

The EU, a few years ago changed the regulations wrt vacuum cleaners so that their efficiency as air movers was specified rather than their power consumption, with inefficient vacuum cleaners banned.

This was a green energy action, to save power use as over the whole EU, the difference was significant.

At the time the market was flooded by low quality, poorly designed, but cheap, models from China. This was met by upproar from the Daily Mail and the red tops - 'How dare the EU prevent us buying cheap vacuum cleaners' etc. There was a run on cheap low quality vacuum cleaners before the deadline.

The EU, afair, has brought in regulations regarding lawn mowers, and phone chargers.

A similar post Brexit situation would be handled by the UK Government by:

1. Copying the new regulation into UK law and enforce it.
2. Holding the new regulation up for ridicule.
3. Ignoring the new regulation.

I think I know how the Brexit crowd would react.

But they don't need it in British law; they only need to be able to show that the exporting companies sending goods to EU follow the new EU requirements. This means they would need a quango or five that monitors standards and ensures companies are held to it for export certification.

The problem is UK has a history of failing on delivering such standards and that EU is highly unlikely to want to give UK such certification power simply because of their history of failing implementation. Why trust UK now after all this time to comply and how is UK suppose to get all those experts set up (all UK citizens of course) when they could not even fill that while in EU? Secondly to this are the issues around achieving such certification which for food for example takes a minimum of 6 months after application (and no applications have been done as far as I'm aware). And this is before we start talking about issues such as third party imports (i.e. chlorinated chicken, substandard Chinese steel, horse meat etc.) going into the product chain as something else before export to EU concerns.

On a separate note Davis attempt to split the EU block to start trade deal negotiations have been shut down hard by Juncker who stated:

But Mr Juncker told the ambassador’s conference on Tuesday morning: “I would like to be clear that I did read with the requisite attention all the papers produced by Her Majesty’s government and none of those is actually satisfactory.

We need to be crystal clear that we will commence no negotiations on the new relationship particularly the new economic and trade relationship between the UK and the EU before all these questions are resolved – that is to say the divorce between the EU and the UK.

Guess UK has to come to the cross and come out with a number after all which they are afraid to do because the Brexiteers and the press will rip 'em a new one for anything below €0 to be paid beyond the need to actually you know, deliver actual workable papers with actual positions taken beyond pie in the sky technology will magically fix things.

Sam Russell · 29-08-2017 02:37PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Let us look at a particular example.

The EU, a few years ago changed the regulations wrt vacuum cleaners so that their efficiency as air movers was specified rather than their power consumption, with inefficient vacuum cleaners banned.

This was a green energy action, to save power use as over the whole EU, the difference was significant.

At the time the market was flooded by low quality, poorly designed, but cheap, models from China. This was met by upproar from the Daily Mail and the red tops - 'How dare the EU prevent us buying cheap vacuum cleaners' etc. There was a run on cheap low quality vacuum cleaners before the deadline.

The EU, afair, has brought in regulations regarding lawn mowers, and phone chargers.

A similar post Brexit situation would be handled by the UK Government by:

1. Copying the new regulation into UK law and enforce it.
2. Holding the new regulation up for ridicule.
3. Ignoring the new regulation.

I think I know how the Brexit crowd would react.

joeysoap wrote: »

Deleted post

I did not realise that this is a live issue.

The problem is related to the power consumption of the vacuum cleaner which Dyson will point out is nothing to do with suction power. I would have thought that the Daily Express would have used this regulation to extol the virtues of British built Dyson vacuum cleaners that 'never lose suction' over the over powered but feeble non- British built products.

They really need to read the small print.

murphaph · 29-08-2017 02:53PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

They really need to read the small print.

It's the Daily Express. They like TO SHOUT in their headlines!

On a more serious note, it does seem as though the EU is edging closer to suspending the talks. If there is nothing of substance to negotiate, then they may have no other choice.

ancapailldorcha · 29-08-2017 03:04PM

Nonsense posts deleted. Take the linkdumping elsewhere please.

solodeogloria · 29-08-2017 04:04PM

Good afternoon!

I'm even stumped by this one! 70% of voters think paying £30bn upwards is unacceptable and 60ish percent think £20bn upwards is unacceptable.

The British voters are making me look like a Euro-federalist.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody · 29-08-2017 04:11PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I'm even stumped by this one! 70% of voters think paying £30bn upwards is unacceptable and 60ish percent think £20bn upwards is unacceptable.

The British voters are making me look like a Euro-federalist.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Which is why I think the UK government has chosen to present all relating to the bill in person and not publish papers; they don't want numbers leaked until they can present a package deal stating that yes we overpaid but we got this for it and it will be worth it.

Blowfish · 29-08-2017 04:25PM

Nody wrote: »

Which is why I think the UK government has chosen to present all relating to the bill in person and not publish papers; they don't want numbers leaked until they can present a package deal stating that yes we overpaid but we got this for it and it will be worth it.

You'd hope so. The negotiating groups for the main issues (including the bill) are today and tomorrow. If after that the EU start ramping up the talk of delaying the next phase, then there's a good chance nothing much was presented regarding the bill. If the EU seems happy enough to continue to the next round though, then there's a good chance as you say that it was presented, but they've agreed to stay quiet on it until it's done.

Nody · 29-08-2017 04:46PM

Blowfish wrote: »

You'd hope so. The negotiating groups for the main issues (including the bill) are today and tomorrow. If after that the EU start ramping up the talk of delaying the next phase, then there's a good chance nothing much was presented regarding the bill. If the EU seems happy enough to continue to the next round though, then there's a good chance as you say that it was presented, but they've agreed to stay quiet on it until it's done.

Even if a number is agreed this week (highly unlikely) there's still the outstanding issue of Irish border (practical implementation) and EU citizen rights in UK which are not sorted out to EU's level of satisfaction to move on in the discussion. Hence I'd not read to much into it either way if things don't progress on to the trade deal in the next week or two.

Sam Russell · 29-08-2017 05:27PM

It has been agreed, I thought that neither side were looking for a number for the final bill, just a methodology.

For example, the UK might agree to pay the pensions of EU retirees of UK origin, while the EU will want the UK to pay their portion of all EU employees who have or will retire in the future. There could be a significant difference between the two figures, but not worth fighting about, I would have thought.

The question of rights is again a question of who arbitrates over disputes. I think that the EU will not settle for less than the ECJ. It should be noted that a large portion of people in NI are Irish citizens, and anyone born there can claim Irish citizenship. So I cannot see the EU agreeing to anything less than ECJ or the ECtHR.

The question of the Irish border/GFA is more difficult because it would be solved if the UK remain in the single market and the customs union - which defines the trade agreement, if FMoP is agreed. If that is agreed, then why is the UK leaving the EU? If they leave the SM & CU, then there can be no easy solution to the border.

Is that a whistle I can hear or is it a clock ticking?

Nate--IRL-- · 29-08-2017 05:32PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

It has been agreed, I thought that neither side were looking for a number for the final bill, just a methodology.

Nothing has been agreed - however it is worth reading the EU's position paper on the Settlement Bill.

Nate

solodeogloria · 29-08-2017 06:09PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

It has been agreed, I thought that neither side were looking for a number for the final bill, just a methodology.

Good evening!

Yes, but a methodology is ultimately a bottom line. It gives you a range.

For the record I think Davis is right to say that negotiators should scrutinise the EU's proposed methodology instead of providing their own. The EU argue that the UK owes money. The best position to be from a British negotiating position is challenging the EU paper and bringing it down rather than presenting a bare minimum and working up.

What I seem to disagree with a majority of the British public on is the amount. I'd be happy to consider around £36bn net with UK assets taken into account. I agree that the €100bn bandied around by some is with the fairies. I agree with Johnson when he says they can go whistle for it. In a scenario like this no deal is better than a bad deal.

Edit: There was an interesting article in the FT this morning with some concluding that the drop in sterling more than offsets the impacts that tariffs would have on competitiveness. It is the worst option however, the UK wants a good deal. Not a bad one.

Direct jurisdiction of the ECJ won't be agreed to. The only option is arbitration on equal terms. ECHR isn't an EU body so that's up for discussion (despite the pain in the backside it was for sending Abu Qatada to Jordan)

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk · 29-08-2017 06:33PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Yes, but a methodology is ultimately a bottom line. It gives you a range.

For the record I think Davis is right to say that negotiators should scrutinise the EU's proposed methodology instead of providing their own. The EU argue that the UK owes money. The best position to be from a British negotiating position is challenging the EU paper and bringing it down rather than presenting a bare minimum and working up.

What I seem to disagree with a majority of the British public on is the amount. I'd be happy to consider around £36bn net with UK assets taken into account. I agree that the €100bn bandied around by some is with the fairies. I agree with Johnson when he says they can go whistle for it. In a scenario like this no deal is better than a bad deal.

Question, do you think the UK owes money to the EU due to the UK triggering article 50? If yes then its up to the UK as much as the EU to come up with either an amount, or as has been agreed, to come up with the method of calculating the amount. This isn't some sort of victory that can be won, it is one part of the process. There is nothing to challenge if you agree that money is owed.

I am also thinking your method seems to be one way to ensure that the negotiations will not be done in a friendly way. Why should the EU do all the work only for the UK to challenge the work of the EU? Who actually triggered article 50 and wants to leave the EU?

You keep posting you see the need for a fair deal for both, but why would the EU want to give the UK a fair deal if the UK hasn't done any of the work to conclude the A50 process?

solodeogloria · 29-08-2017 06:42PM

Enzokk wrote: »

Question, do you think the UK owes money to the EU due to the UK triggering article 50? If yes then its up to the UK as much as the EU to come up with either an amount, or as has been agreed, to come up with the method of calculating the amount. This isn't some sort of victory that can be won, it is one part of the process. There is nothing to challenge if you agree that money is owed.

I am also thinking your method seems to be one way to ensure that the negotiations will not be done in a friendly way. Why should the EU do all the work only for the UK to challenge the work of the EU? Who actually triggered article 50 and wants to leave the EU?

You keep posting you see the need for a fair deal for both, but why would the EU want to give the UK a fair deal if the UK hasn't done any of the work to conclude the A50 process?

Good evening!

The EU are claiming the British need to pay them for X, Y and Z. If the British feel they only owe them for X then they have every right to challenge everything beyond this.

The creditor always issues the invoice. I don't think the language of debt is helpful. It is about honouring budgetary commitments. I think they should do this. I'm willing to go a lot further than the majority of British people in fact if the polls are correct!

It's not friendly to rip a friend off either. I suspect the EU want to make an example of Britain but there are figures that should cause Britain to walk. What would make the UK agree a terrible deal?

Presenting a minimum figure is a bad negotiating strategy. Tearing into the EU's figure is much much better. I suspect that's why they don't like this approach. The numbers only go down this way. Not up.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nate--IRL-- · 29-08-2017 06:47PM

That's an interesting hypothesis - perhaps the EU should remove this bit from their position paper, in order to align with your views of them.

IV. European Central Bank (ECB)
As part of the financial settlement, the paid-in capital of the United Kingdom in the ECB should be
reimbursed to the Bank of England (BoE) as prescribed by the schedule of payment referred to in
part VIII. Modalities and other practical arrangements should be established by the ECB Governing
Council following the rules of the Treaties and its Protocols

Nate

Enzokk · 29-08-2017 06:58PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are claiming the British need to pay them for X, Y and Z. If the British feel they only owe them for X then they have every right to challenge everything beyond this.

The creditor always issues the invoice. I don't think the language of debt is helpful. It is about honouring budgetary commitments. I think they should do this. I'm willing to go a lot further than the majority of British people in fact if the polls are correct!

It's not friendly to rip a friend off either. I suspect the EU want to make an example of Britain but there are figures that should cause Britain to walk. What would make the UK agree a terrible deal?

Presenting a minimum figure is a bad negotiating strategy. Tearing into the EU's figure is much much better. I suspect that's why they don't like this approach. The numbers only go down this way. Not up.

Its a negotiation, the EU has presented what they think are the financial commitments that are due. You think the UK shouldn't present what they think, they should just take the EU position and tear it to pieces. Do I have that right?

solodeogloria wrote: »

For the record I think Davis is right to say that negotiators should scrutinise the EU's proposed methodology instead of providing their own.

Another question, is there any position that the UK will take that you will not agree with?

blanch152 · 29-08-2017 07:00PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Edit: There was an interesting article in the FT this morning with some concluding that the drop in sterling more than offsets the impacts that tariffs would have on competitiveness. It is the worst option however, the UK wants a good deal. Not a bad one.

That would be excellent news for big business.

However, the ordinary consumer, wanting to go buy imported goods, or go on holidays to Europe would be bearing a huge huge cost for Brexit.

solodeogloria · 29-08-2017 07:07PM

Enzokk wrote: »

Its a negotiation, the EU has presented what they think are the financial commitments that are due. You think the UK shouldn't present what they think, they should just take the EU position and tear it to pieces. Do I have that right?

Another question, is there any position that the UK will take that you will not agree with?

Good evening!

I think challenging the EU's list is definitely the right strategy. Putting out a minimum isn't in the UK's national interest.

To your second question. I think at present the transition terms are probably overly optimistic. I think some amount of money needs to be paid. If nothing was paid I'd say this was wrong but it shouldn't go far beyond 3 years of contribution plus the UK's share of assets. If the Tories climbed down over regaining the ability to control trade policy, the role of the ECJ and immigration I'd be hugely disappointed. There are possible outcomes that I could disagree with. So far it's going very well in terms of what I agree with.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments