Professor Moriarty wrote: » Tariffs won't be the UK's biggest problem, it will be regulations.
PeadarCo wrote: » The UK won't have it's own standards in practice . It will have to make choices on which standards to either directly follow the standards of the block it aligns itself with or so closely that it makes no difference(and if that economic block decides to make drastic changes the UK would be forced to do the same). Look at Ireland since independence, a lot of UK standards have been accepted more or less because it's the most practical option. The same will apply to UK Post Brexit. However the UK like Ireland in the past will have no influence over them. The UK will have standards and laws imposed by pure economics post Brexit. That's what being a small country and economy entails as Irelands economic history pre EU shows. Relative to the EU, the UK outside the block is small. The UK will have its own trade policy. But it will be limited to which economic block it aligns itself with. By doing a trade deal with one block you may rule out a trade deal with another. The issue of chlorinated chicken is a perfect example. The UK will have to choose who's standards it wants to accept. And that is just one of countless choices the UK will be forced to make. The biggest lie of Brexit was taking back control. The UK will lose much of the control it had as part of the EU. The UK isn't in a position to negotiate on it's own with any of the major economic powers as the entire brexit process has aptly shown.
Flex wrote: » UK Prime Minister Johnson has this evening wrote a letter to Donald Tuskhttps://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/boris-johnson/news/106014/read-full-boris-johnsons In it he refers to the 'undemocratic backstop' as being nonviable and makes out that the backstop actually undermines and threatens the GFA. In exchange he suggests the backstop be replaced by commitments to implementing alternative arrangements. Effectively its absolutely nothing new; 'replace the backstop with a pledge to seek alternative arrangements before the end of the transition period'. My feeling on this is that as others have mentioned here, the UK government and media is full steam ahead at its 1984 style brainwashing of the UK populace but is getting zero public reactions from the EU or EU capitals and is becoming frustrated. I believe this is an attempt to draw a public reaction that they can use to feed the propaganda machine at the moment, and as such I really hope its met with continued silence.
The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement,
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Why call it that other than that you know everyone calls it the GFA but want to show that you know the DUP call it something different.
Foghladh wrote: » That's not accurate. What any country has to do is make sure that the goods offered for export meets the required standard of the receiving country. The UK already has its own standards which currently align with EU requirements for transfer within the EU. If the UK trades with the US in the future it means that goods offered are compatible with US standards. It is possible for a country to maintain its own standards and export goods that meet others. If what you claim is true then any country outside of a trade bloc would be committed to dealing with one group and not another
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Yep, more of the same, pandering to domestic interests. Two points in particular: 1. Why Donald Tusk? He isnt the negotiator. 2. His words make it clear that hes speaking to the DUP: Why call it that other than that you know everyone calls it the GFA but want to show that you know the DUP call it something different.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » I mentioned before the Tories will try to bring the CTA in to this as a tool to cajole Ireland. Suddenly it's being mentioned again by the British side. I am convinced they will use it as a stick soon.
reslfj wrote: » Fish and farm are economically rather insignificant business areas for the UK as such, but they are very important for many rural communities. Why fishers and farmers voted for Brexit is beyond me.
listermint wrote: » That's also not accurate. The UK would have to lower it's standards to accept food from the US this negating any EU deals of similar goods as the EU standards will not be lowered. That is more accurate .
prawnsambo wrote: » I believe that's what it's called in UK legislation.
PeadarCo wrote: » Yes but are businesses prepared to bear the costs? I'd agree with you in principle and I'd agree that I exaggerated a bit. However it still doesn't get around the costs involved for exporting to different markets with different regulations and standards. If there are minor differences there might be minimal costs. However the bigger the differences the bigger the costs. At a certain point it becomes unprofitable to make the required changes. Where this comes into play for a country like the UK is imports. The closer its standard are to another economic the less non tarrif barriers importers will face and the greater options the UK consumers will have. However in my post I mentioned economics forcing the UK to align with one of the major economic blocks. That doesn't change. UK regulations can be as different as the UK wants from the rest of the world providing the country is prepared to deal with the increased cost and lack of choice that comes with having very different regulations compared to the rest of the world. However it most economical/cheaper to go with the standards most used and tested internationally. Which means the UK deciding whose standards to follow the EU/US/Chinese etc and having no influence over them. Now as part of a major economic block in the EU the UK can directly influence global standards. It will lose that power after Brexit.
Strazdas wrote: » Reaction from journos on Twitter is that it is a ridiculous publicity stunt by Johnson and he is not attempting a negotiation at all. It's probably aimed at various interests in the UK.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Had he just called it the Belfast Agreement that would be fine. But acknowleding both names seems deliberate, as does it being repeated several times. Maybe its a Jacob Rees Mogg style guide thing, but it certainly reads like pandering to them when the world seems to know it as the GFA If he was a stickler for the proprieties, like Nigel Farage, then maybe giving its UK title would be more reasonable
Foghladh wrote: » So your issue is that rather than referring to it by its UK title he referred to both?
Water John wrote: » Johnson, of all people, telling the EU to trust him, is a pathetic joke. They know him well.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Its not an issue I have with the letter. Its that one can reasonably infer from theanguage used who the real intended audicence is
Enzokk wrote: » Yes, I have seen a few reactions from journalists and they are all dismissive of it. When you have the Europe Editor of The Daily Telegraph tweeting this, well then it has not gone well. He focuses on Johnson telling the EU that a deal can be done if the EU just trusts the UK. We are back to the negotiations already before the backstop, where similar lines were spouted but rejected. I agree that this is not a serious attempt to negotiate, this is just window dressing to sell it as an attempt to negotiate. It is the buyer going into BMW and telling them he will buy a new 3 series for £10K and when they tell him to bugger off he calls foul and berates them for not negotiating. Here is the Guardian front page for tomorrow already, So the letter has not been well received as you may expect. The WA is not open for negotiation and the backstop is the legal guarantee for no hard border. That will trump, "trust me", in most people's eyes but the UK it seems.
Foghladh wrote: » Well if I were to put you on the spot, then what language used pandered specifically to one side? Other than the Belfast/Good Friday bit?
Valhallapt wrote: » Chuck Schumer (us senate minority leader) has written to secretary Pompeo stating that they won’t support a trade deal that undermines the GFAhttps://www.rte.ie/amp/1069740/?__twitter_impression=true Also told him to stop making promises that he can’t keep. I suspect they see trump shouting about U.K. trade deals as nothing more than supporting his pal farrage.
Strazdas wrote: » "Anti democratic backstop" is clearly not aimed at the EU (the phrase doesn't even make any sense). That is purely for the British audience.
