nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

This is the twelfth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread.

I appreciate that the end of Brexit is or may be in sight (insofar as one can be certain) but please bear the following in mind before posting:

Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary
Discussion of Sinn Féin's longstanding policy of abstention from Westminster is not suitable for this thread. Posts on this subject may be deleted

Previous thread is here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058016732

United Ireland thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058014553

Scottish Independence thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058023269

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ancapailldorcha

I heard nothing about this. I'm not saying that it should be cause to abandon Brexit but it should at least be publicised so people know how it is proceeding:

https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1219744647741870081?s=12&fbclid=IwAR3WZz5i31ihQZJaiKQPLzQU8WgfNEiGtouuS-9PchmGflPbOu9JG7ooFwI

tuxy

Leroy42 wrote: »

Perhaps someone could give me an answer.

In terms of a UK company exporting to the EU after 2020, or any Non EU member doing it I suppose. Does every shipment have to be checked or at least be open to be checked or do companies get certification for a product that remains in place until that product is changed?

It would be impractical and impossible to check all shipments.
My understanding is that companies premises will be inspected to see if they meet standards. I would think this could also include surprise inspections.

ath262

from Jennifer Rankin, Brussels correspondent for the Guardian Newspaper :

'There are already more than 25,000 civil servants working on Brexit and that number will actually rise as we leave the EU,” says former DexEU permanent secretary. The entire European Commission employs 32,200 people'.... links to article by Philip Rycroft

First Up

Leroy42 wrote:

Where do most of the toys that we buy come from, China, yet we don't have a trade deal with them, so therefore trade deals are not necessary. We all buy stuff from the US, and again no trade deal.

The term "trade deal" seems to be widely misunderstood. Companies in (virtually) very country can trade with (virtually) every other country. Trade "deals" don't permit trade; they just make it easier by reducing barriers such as import duties or quotas.

Countries can trade without a bilateral deal trade under World Trade Organisation Most Favoured Nation terms.

Leroy42

Cheers Nody, very clear.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

Perhaps someone could give me an answer.

In terms of a UK company exporting to the EU after 2020, or any Non EU member doing it I suppose. Does every shipment have to be checked or at least be open to be checked or do companies get certification for a product that remains in place until that product is changed?

Depends on the product basically. Take frozen meat as an example; the default sample rate would be 70% (that's samples taken from 70% of the individual pieces to be tested in a lab at the border before the truck is allowed to move on). Now a country such as let's say Brazil may apply for having their local process recognized by the EU as being basically good enough (this comes down to traceability of the meat in the slaughter house, farms, checks done etc.) and this is done by EU literally sending their inspectorss to the country to check it out. This process has a minimum duration of 6 months but often longer; once achieved EU will lower the inspection rate and in case of for example NZ lamb we're talking about 1 to 2% check rate. Here's the problem though; for frozen meat if you wait a day or three for sampling it's not the end of the world. Fresh meat (such as the fish caught by British fishermen which is exported to EU) would have a much harder time from such delays. To give you an live border example; the company I work for exports food stuff to Serbia from an EU factory; at the border the border guards have the right (and do every time) decide to go into the truck and open random boxes and take "samples" out for inspection. They are suppose to send it for controls but in practice they are grabbing it for themselves. The problem is then the goods arrive to our storage with an open box which then has to be tossed (risk for contamination as it's open or we'd need to send it off to a lab to have it checked which costs more than the box worth).

Now; to return to your question about "other goods"; the certification (in country recognized by EU or by an EU entity) would usually be valid until changed / X number of years depending on the type of goods. That certification would then lower the percentage of controls but usually never 100% remove it (unless there's an agreed control scheme in the country EU can trust to do the controls before export; once again mutual recognition which Boris appears to want to skip out on). Sending a bridge? A week delay no issue. JIT car parts which work with an hours worth of supply getting stuck randomly for checks (remember UK will need to apply checks on inbound as well)? Houston we got a problem.

RobMc59

timetogo1 wrote: »

Well the EU will give the best that the UK can negotiate for.
The bar has not been set high by the UK negotiators for the last 3 years. So the EU will probably get a great deal, for the EU.

That's exactly what we should do. The UK is just a third country after 31st Jan.

And the Japan and Canada deals took years to negotiate (with real negotiatiors). Boris has limited the UK to a few months (with not so skilled negotiators)

Isn't the deal with Canada still not officially signed off by all nations?

Leroy42

Perhaps someone could give me an answer.

In terms of a UK company exporting to the EU after 2020, or any Non EU member doing it I suppose. Does every shipment have to be checked or at least be open to be checked or do companies get certification for a product that remains in place until that product is changed?

Leroy42

I think part of the problem is that the Average Joe, myself included, look at world trade and don't appreciate the complexity of the bureaucracy behind it. People see items from all over the world sitting on selves and thus it must be that trade is easy.

Where do most of the toys that we buy come from, China, yet we don't have a trade deal with them, so therefore trade deals are not necessary. We all buy stuff from the US, and again no trade deal. What we don't see if the work that has to go on behind the scenes to make it happen. Average Joe doesn't see the port facilities, the cost of storage, the customs officers, the regulation checks, the forms etc.

No more than the Average Joe really understands the journey of oil from under the ground to the petrol station. It just is.

Very hard to then argue, at least in a soundbite, that all the bureaucracy is needed and is there for a reason. And that the bureaucracy was only removed from within the EU, at least in terms of product flow, by creating a different layer of bureaucracy.

Nody

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Why not? We used to chlorine wash chicken for greater safety, people quite happily eat it when they are on holiday in the States and the EU allows the sale of chlorine washed pre-packed salad using a stronger solution.

Banning chlorine washed is just a method of protecting EU farmers from competition, even the EU admits that it's safe,

Look up the number of cases of salmonella poisoning in USA vs. UK; the wash is only used to hide the awful practices used by US farmers in the first place and should not be needed nor does it properly kill the diseases etc.

brickster69 wrote: »

EU getting a bit upset, it's like they have stole Theresa's gun and pointing it at themselves now. They will calm down next Friday night at 11.00pm. Bong !

No; that's EU simply telling the UK that if that's what you want these are the consequences accordingly. You might not understand the significance of what EU is telling Boris but I can assure you the companies impacted are VERY aware of the impact it would have. Hence let's spell it out; ANY goods being sold to EU would need to be certified in an EU country. That means every single certification issued in the UK means nothing and every certification would need to be done by an EU country again. Not only is that a significant amount of work moved to EU but as well a significant amount of additional cost and any changes to the products etc. would need to be certified again. You know what companies don't like? Spending more money; want to a guess what that means for UK based companies exporting to the EU and choosing production sites or competing with EU companies that only require one certification rather than two?

McGiver

timetogo1 wrote:

And the Japan and Canada deals took years to negotiate (with real negotiatiors). Boris has limited the UK to a few months (with not so skilled negotiators)

I am beginning to think this is deliberate.
He'll say "We've tried negotiating but the belligerent EU didn't give us a quick good chance deal, so we need to get a deal with the US"...

timetogo1

brickster69 wrote: »

EU getting a bit upset, it's like they have stole Theresa's gun and pointing it at themselves now. They will calm down next Friday night at 11.00pm. Bong !

Well the EU will give the best that the UK can negotiate for.
The bar has not been set high by the UK negotiators for the last 3 years. So the EU will probably get a great deal, for the EU.

That's exactly what we should do. The UK is just a third country after 31st Jan.

And the Japan and Canada deals took years to negotiate (with real negotiatiors). Boris has limited the UK to a few months (with not so skilled negotiators)

LeinsterDub

brickster69 wrote: »

EU getting a bit upset, it's like they have stole Theresa's gun and pointing it at themselves now. They will calm down next Friday night at 11.00pm. Bong !

The EU hold most of the cards. The UK comes out worse than the EU no matter the outcome and if the UK end up worse than Japan or Canada it because of the red lines it's drawn. Nothing happens next Friday barring the UK leaving. The balance of power won't shift

RobMc59

SantaCruz wrote: »

On the contrary, I'm a strict vegetarian when working in the USA.

I don't blame you.Kentucky fried chlorine doesn't sound very appealing!

tuxy

SantaCruz wrote: »

On the contrary, I'm a strict vegetarian when working in the USA.

I think more people would do this if there were not completely clueless of the different in rules on animal products.

SantaCruz

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Why not? We used to chlorine wash chicken for greater safety, people quite happily eat it when they are on holiday in the States and the EU allows the sale of chlorine washed pre-packed salad using a stronger solution.

On the contrary, I'm a strict vegetarian when working in the USA.

SantaCruz

beggars_bush wrote: »

It's that sort of technical explanation that was never aired during any debate in the UK about brexit and trade deals

Oh but it was. But can't be summarised in ten words.

fash

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Why not? We used to chlorine wash chicken for greater safety, people quite happily eat it when they are on holiday in the States .

Interesting to see that Brexiters are now changing their tune from "never chlorine" to "whatever needed to get American deal" as they try to chip away at the values of the average UK citizen and follow instructions from above.

As regards chlorine, sure it is for "greater safety"- that if the problem, that this greater safety is required because of horrifying farming practices. People on holiday are happy to eat American chicken because they don't know better (the US doesn't advertise that it chlorine washes the chicken- and demands that the UK not allow chlorine washed chicken to be marked as such) - and their lower farming standards result in far higher salmonella, listeria and food poisoning cases- so I'm sure that those affected were not too happy eating chlorine washed chicken - and certainly those who have died due to food poisoning as a result of low US standards don't feel "happy"about it - indeed they don't feel anything at all as they are not dead.
It should also be noted that there was a relatively recent amount of research done showing that chlorine washing is actually not very effective at cleaning the chicken- which explains the poor US results.

.

and the EU allows the sale of chlorine washed pre-packed salad using a stronger solution.

Indeed - but salad isn't battery farmed in horrifying conditions surrounded by hundreds of thousands of chickens, their faeces and antibiotic resistant diseases.

.

Banning chlorine washed is just a method of protecting EU farmers from competition, even the EU admits that it's safe,

Even the US admits that chlorine is unsafe and a poor second best method of ensuring safe meat actually. Chlorine washing is required because up until the point of the chlorine washing, the meat is allowed to be riddled with diseases.
The chlorine wash (if it works at all or partly) is hoped to kill some or most of the disease.
Even the US admits that not having the diseases in place in the first place is a better and safer way of dealing with food.
I suspect that even Brexiters if they were honest with themselves (now there is an amusing thought) would also agree.

fash

reslfj wrote: »

Sweden is a full EU member.

Norway, Island and Liechtenstein are EEA members and members of the SM (but not the CU).

Switzerland has 100+ agreements with the EU effectively being in the SM too.

The ECJ is fronted by the EFTA court (following the ECJ rulings)

Lars

Brain fart- should have written Switzerland

reslfj

fash wrote: »

.... something not even the highly aligned Norway or Sweden have.

Sweden is a full EU member.

Norway, Island and Liechtenstein are EEA members and members of the SM (but not the CU).

Switzerland has 100+ agreements with the EU effectively being in the SM too.

The ECJ is fronted by the EFTA court (following the ECJ rulings)

Lars

ArthurDayne

beggars_bush wrote: »

It's that sort of technical explanation that was never aired during any debate in the UK about brexit and trade deals

Because it bores people to tears — and that’s the thing really : EU regulation is dramatised and hyperbolised by the Brexiteers into being some barmy nefarious plot by Eurocrats to control our lives. In reality most of it is just supremely boring stuff which was designed (often as a result of lobbying by the relevant business community) to make it easier for 28 closely-packed economies to do business.

ThePanjandrum

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'd guess no one wants chlorinated chicken or other genetically modified crap from the US.

Why not? We used to chlorine wash chicken for greater safety, people quite happily eat it when they are on holiday in the States and the EU allows the sale of chlorine washed pre-packed salad using a stronger solution.

Banning chlorine washed is just a method of protecting EU farmers from competition, even the EU admits that it's safe,

Strazdas

I can't imagine this headline going down too well in Brexit-land :

EU preparing to give UK worse trade deal terms than Canada or Japan

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/01/21/eu-preparing-give-uk-worse-trade-deal-terms-canada-japan/

beggars_bush

CelticRambler wrote: »

It's not that simple - not at all! In many situations, the "finished" product coming out of a UK factory is, in itself, destined to be a component in some EU-manufactured item, and that item might return to the UK to be incorporated into yet another "finished" product before ending up in something assembled in a fourth, EU-based, factory where it is at last sold to an end-user.

At each step of the process, there are competitor products, and if any of the EU-suppliers feel they're being undercut by the UK supplier, they will go looking for reasons to lobby the EU to prevent the item being certified as conforming to EU standards.

This might be as simple as pointing out that the paint used on the external surface is some cheap lead-filled Chinese gunk, but it could also be that the UK supplier is using the same paint as in the EU factory, but thanks to weaker UK H&S rules, the guy in the English factory can be made to spray it 12 hours a day, wearing a substandard mask and no environmental control on the run-off.

This is the "level playing field" that the UK is going to struggle to leave: it's all very well saying they'll adopt a US-style "light touch" regulation - but if that gives UK-based manufacturing or agri-food producers a significant "unfair" advantage over EU producers, everything in that broad category will be excluded from the FTA - even if the individual components or ingredients are coming from the same original sources as used within the EU.

It's that sort of technical explanation that was never aired during any debate in the UK about brexit and trade deals

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK acts more as a finishing ground for manufacturing. If they have lower standards in some area due to some agreement, I guess periodic checks on the finished good to make sure all component pieces are up to grade would be performed?

It's not that simple - not at all! In many situations, the "finished" product coming out of a UK factory is, in itself, destined to be a component in some EU-manufactured item, and that item might return to the UK to be incorporated into yet another "finished" product before ending up in something assembled in a fourth, EU-based, factory where it is at last sold to an end-user.

At each step of the process, there are competitor products, and if any of the EU-suppliers feel they're being undercut by the UK supplier, they will go looking for reasons to lobby the EU to prevent the item being certified as conforming to EU standards.

This might be as simple as pointing out that the paint used on the external surface is some cheap lead-filled Chinese gunk, but it could also be that the UK supplier is using the same paint as in the EU factory, but thanks to weaker UK H&S rules, the guy in the English factory can be made to spray it 12 hours a day, wearing a substandard mask and no environmental control on the run-off.

This is the "level playing field" that the UK is going to struggle to leave: it's all very well saying they'll adopt a US-style "light touch" regulation - but if that gives UK-based manufacturing or agri-food producers a significant "unfair" advantage over EU producers, everything in that broad category will be excluded from the FTA - even if the individual components or ingredients are coming from the same original sources as used within the EU.

looksee

brickster69 wrote: »

Not really. Every country that exports, has to abide to the standards of the country they are exporting to. That applies to EU exporters to UK and every country in the world.

However if the UK wishes to export goods with a lower standard it is free to do so and likewise import goods of a lower standard if it so wishes.

You are still doing it - segueing from exporting to the EU to exporting to everywhere else.

If the UK exports to the EU it will have to abide by the standards of the EU. It may export lower quality goods to other countries but it will not be able to export them to the EU.

Thus if the UK wishes to have a trade agreement with the EU it will have to be to their rules and on their terms. So nothing will have changed from pre-Brexit except that the UK will not have any involvement in the making of those rules.

fash

brickster69 wrote: »

The Uk can align to EU standards and regulations if they wish.But they can also diverge from those if they wish. Maybe they will allign with some and diverge from others.

It is the not committing to being bound that causes the UK to incur massive costs:
https://www.cer.eu/insights/flexibility-does-not-come-free
There may be an intermediate solution a commitment to be bound coupled with an article 50 type procedure for instance - but I doubt the UK would be interested.

First Up

Deleted User wrote:

The UK acts more as a finishing ground for manufacturing. If they have lower standards in some area due to some agreement, I guess periodic checks on the finished good to make sure all component pieces are up to grade would be performed?

Periodic? Every shipment.

But if UK companies are offering products with materials or components that don't meet EU standards, nobody in the EU will knowingly buy them.

[Deleted User]

First Up wrote: »

There are checks and if it doesn't comply with EU standards, it doesn't get in.

The UK acts more as a finishing ground for manufacturing. If they have lower standards in some area due to some agreement, I guess periodic checks on the finished good to make sure all component pieces are up to grade would be performed?

fash

brickster69 wrote: »

Of course any company who wants to sell into the EU has to abide by its rules. Also agree that aside from that the UK will do whatever it wants to do elsewhere.

It's not just a question of A company complying with EU product standards, if the state in which that company exists artificially props up that company or that company is able to produce cheaper products by pumping toxins into the sea while relying on cheap coal burning and slave labour, then the country in which that company exists cannot expect to have tariff and quota free access to the single market - something not even the highly aligned Norway or Sweden have.