Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

ath262 · 22-01-2020 11:00am

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

tuxy · 22-01-2020 11:08am

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.

ancapailldorcha · 22-01-2020 11:16am

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

Zubeneschamali · 22-01-2020 11:24am

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The EU hold most of the cards. The UK comes out worse than the EU no matter the outcome

You have to remember that Johnson doesn't care about this at all.

He won the election by promising to get Brexit done, so he is going to get it done and call it victory. The fact the the UK will come out badly economically doesn't worry him because the Brexiteers will spin it as:

a) everyone knew there would be a price and voted for it so it's old news

and at the same time:

b) this proves the EU is evil and we were right to leave such an evil org.

Leroy42 · 22-01-2020 11:26am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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

No you are wrong, because you fail to understand how a real union works. True democracy means that the majority gets want it wants regardless of how the rest feel.

The problem with the EU is that the UK, being the most important member (since it includes England and that is the most important in that union so it follows!) wasn't simply allowed to make the decision based purely on what they wanted because there rest of the union outweighed them.

It might seem flippant, but in reality this is what Brexit is all about. England, primarily, do not like the idea of not being in charge and having to actual have an equal footing to others. They have never worked that way, and still today do not work that way.

You can argue back and forth about immigration, regulation, money, laws etc, but at the very core of it, it all comes back to England not wanting to be equal with others but being above everyone else.

If the EU simply morphed into a larger version of the UK, with Westminster in complete control, Brexit would not even be a thing.

moritz1234 · 22-01-2020 12:05pm

fash wrote: »

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.

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

.
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.

Great to see an actual fact based post. Most people think the Chlorine is the issue, dear God, it's the dirty infested low standard farming practices that makes Chlorine washing necessary (and again does it really help). Great post

First Up · 22-01-2020 12:32pm

McGiver wrote:

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"...

What a great negotiating tactic - opening line "we are desperate".

Leonard Hofstadter · 22-01-2020 12:47pm

SantaCruz wrote: »

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

I go for a chicken free diet over there. Steaks aside, food in the US tastes so bad it makes food in the UK seem like first class stuff by comparison (which in turn is nowhere near as tasty as our own food).

WomanSkirtFan8 · 22-01-2020 1:21pm

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Brexit MEP is shocked to discover the UK will have no input into the EU fisheries committee during the transition period!

https://twitter.com/june_mummery/status/1219624534271238144

Well what did she expect?. Once the UK leaves the EU on the 31st, they have no input whatsoever into any EU matters as they won't be a member.

Igotadose · 22-01-2020 1:33pm

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

I go for a chicken free diet over there. Steaks aside, food in the US tastes so bad it makes food in the UK seem like first class stuff by comparison (which in turn is nowhere near as tasty as our own food).

Totally agree. US Expat, now Ireland resident, no contest on the food, US food is sh1te. The eggs are flavorless, the beef, lamb and poultry insipid. The only thing better is the junk food, and there are more ethnic foods available easily, depending on where you are. But straight up, a US steak or burger or fried egg has nothing on an Irish one.

LuckyLloyd · 22-01-2020 1:59pm

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,

Here it is folks, this is what freedom looks like. Chlorinated chicken - the glory of taking back control.

Nody · 22-01-2020 3:53pm

First Up wrote: »

What a great negotiating tactic - opening line "we are desperate".

And in a trade dispute :P

The US has threatened to hike taxes on car companies if Boris Johnson presses ahead with plans for a levy on tech giants such as Google and Facebook.

In an escalation of tensions, Steven Mnuchin, Donald Trump’s treasury secretary, said the US considered the UK’s proposed digital services tax to be “discriminatory” and warned that Washington could impose retaliatory taxes on the automobile industry.

reslfj · 22-01-2020 5:02pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

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

Yes, it was agreed that CETA should be considered a "mixed deal" and (part of it) should be ratified by narional/regional parliaments.

But most of the trade stuff need not be ratified by members (only OK'ed by Council and EP) and "CETA applies provisionally since 21 September 2017"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement#Signature_and_ratification

Lars

reslfj · 22-01-2020 5:34pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

...
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 EU has many agreements with both China and the US. Many with relation to trade too.
But not fully qualifying as FTS's. As both China and the US are weeks to a month away in transport time, the types of goods traded will be different and fewer than the type of goods traded within the SM.

Leroy42 wrote: »

.... 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.

Standard and rule compliance requires some control and certification, but the SM moves these controls to one (trusted) national control/certification for each product and removes the need for a much more frequent and in many cases time critical bureaucracy of checking goods at (rather arbitrarily placed) borders.

Standards, rules and regulations are absolutely necessary in modern trade.
Having one common set and one common legal systems of courts - as in the SM - can, however, hugely reduce the cost of compliance and will facilitate trade.

Lars

fash · 22-01-2020 6:37pm

Igotadose wrote: »

Totally agree. US Expat, now Ireland resident, no contest on the food, US food is sh1te. The eggs are flavorless, the beef, lamb and poultry insipid. The only thing better is the junk food, and there are more ethnic foods available easily, depending on where you are. But straight up, a US steak or burger or fried egg has nothing on an Irish one.

Best barbeques and smoked meat I've ever had has been in the US though - also some amazing next level breakfasts /brunches.

Capt'n Midnight · 22-01-2020 8:07pm

WomanSkirtFan8 wrote: »

An Ciarraioch wrote:

Brexit MEP is shocked to discover the UK will have no input into the EU fisheries committee during the transition period!

https://twitter.com/june_mummery/sta...24534271238144

Well what did she expect?. Once the UK leaves the EU on the 31st, they have no input whatsoever into any EU matters as they won't be a member.

Neither will Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. Because of a temporary power grab by Westminster using ye olde laws.

Meanwhile, Blackford said the Scottish Parliament would lose 28 devolved powers covering areas such as farming, fishing and the environment.

CelticRambler · 22-01-2020 10:27pm

SantaCruz wrote: »

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

Their veggies are none to clean either, and regularly implicated in food poisoning outbreaks. But then again, even the water's borderline toxic in many areas due to the "light touch" regulation so coveted by Brexiters.

I happen to think that this'll present a real dilemma for post-Brexit GB, as they were one of the main drivers of higher animal welfare and food hygiene standards across the EU. They're going to find it very difficult to promote themselves as a producer of premium quality, ecologically responsible, sustainably produced food if the capitalist overlords are shredding environmental protections (see Trump administration 2016-2020) in favour of fracking, heavy industry and miscellaneous get-rich-quick schemes.

serfboard · 23-01-2020 9:03pm

London Consultancy Capital Economics predicts a BRINO:

Capital Economics wrote:

Some sort of fudge that prevents a step-change in the UK-EU relationship at the end of this year is more likely ... A piecemeal approach could involve deals in some areas [such as goods] being agreed this year and the status quo being maintained in others [services] until deals can be sorted after 2020 ... If the UK wanted a relationship as close as full EU membership or as distant as operating on WTO terms, that could be arranged very quickly. But something like Canada, plus, plus will be harder and will take longer. This tight timetable may force the UK to give up some ground

Johnson's stupid timetable meets reality.

Strazdas · 23-01-2020 9:10pm

serfboard wrote: »

London Consultancy Capital Economics predicts a BRINO:

Johnson's stupid timetable meets reality.

How would the ERG react though? Would they ever settle for a BRINO? These guys are fruitcakes and not pragmatic.

Leroy42 · 23-01-2020 9:31pm

They are in a bing though. Johnson has sold the 31st as Brexit done, and to remove it from the narrative.

So any attempt by the ERG or others to slow the process down, given that many people are fed up with it and just voted for Johnson to get on with it, may well come under the same opprobrium as the remainers previously..

RobMc59 · 23-01-2020 9:56pm

Strazdas wrote: »

How would the ERG react though? Would they ever settle for a BRINO? These guys are fruitcakes and not pragmatic.

If BRINO means following EU regulations for food and health and safety standards I think that`s a good thing,or am I missing something?

PeadarCo · 23-01-2020 10:10pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

If BRINO means following EU regulations for food and health and safety standards I think that`s a good thing,or am I missing something?

That depends on your point of view.

However the UK will have no direct input on these regulations and any changes going forward. One of the arguments for Brexit that the EU was a dictatorship that imposed laws on the UK against the will of UK politicians. Obviously this was a whole pile of rubbish. However ironically leaving the EU will result in laws being more or less imposed on the UK without any say from UK politicians.

farmerval · 23-01-2020 11:39pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

Their veggies are none to clean either, and regularly implicated in food poisoning outbreaks. But then again, even the water's borderline toxic in many areas due to the "light touch" regulation so coveted by Brexiters.

I happen to think that this'll present a real dilemma for post-Brexit GB, as they were one of the main drivers of higher animal welfare and food hygiene standards across the EU. They're going to find it very difficult to promote themselves as a producer of premium quality, ecologically responsible, sustainably produced food if the capitalist overlords are shredding environmental protections (see Trump administration 2016-2020) in favour of fracking, heavy industry and miscellaneous get-rich-quick schemes.

I don't think this will be a problem for the Tories. Britain imports loads of it's food. They export very little food. Cheap food imports are a long standing Tory policy.

Igotadose · 24-01-2020 9:28am

Taking back control by lowering the minimum wage for migrant workers: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-migrant-workers-minimum-wage-priti-patel-cbi-a9299466.html

Nody · 24-01-2020 10:49am

Igotadose wrote: »

Taking back control by lowering the minimum wage for migrant workers: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-migrant-workers-minimum-wage-priti-patel-cbi-a9299466.html

Actually if you'd read the article you'd have found out what they are talking about is the new proposed minimum yearly salary for immigrants by Patel (30k GBP) to be allowed in permanently to instead be 20.1k GBP and the salary being at least 25% above the average for the position (were as 30k GBP is a fixed amount and could be well below the average or above). Hence immigration would increase the salary average in said sectors rather than be a race for the bottom (though I'm sure there ways to exploit sector selection). The problem is of course plenty of restaurants don't pay their chefs 30k so would be excluded from getting their promised dividend in cheap staff from Pakistan, India etc. However a 30k GBP minimum would likely as well make for example call centers impossible to run from UK in anything but English (would hit for example Scottland).

Leroy42 · 24-01-2020 11:04am

Exactly. But what it spells out is that immigration is not going away anytime soon. Business are explicitly requesting that they be given exemptions, and once exemptions are introduced then why not others? So we need extra nurses, or plumbers, or mechanics. And sure why not accountants.

And sure the locals won't pick fruit, so we need them, and bin collections, and home care etc etc. Pretty soon you have so many exemptions that you wonder what the point of the law was in the first place.

And any business that can move wil move as the admin work to constantly apply for exemptions because wasteful.

RobMc59 · 24-01-2020 11:31am

CelticRambler wrote: »

Their veggies are none to clean either, and regularly implicated in food poisoning outbreaks. But then again, even the water's borderline toxic in many areas due to the "light touch" regulation so coveted by Brexiters.

I happen to think that this'll present a real dilemma for post-Brexit GB, as they were one of the main drivers of higher animal welfare and food hygiene standards across the EU. They're going to find it very difficult to promote themselves as a producer of premium quality, ecologically responsible, sustainably produced food if the capitalist overlords are shredding environmental protections (see Trump administration 2016-2020) in favour of fracking, heavy industry and miscellaneous get-rich-quick schemes.

The best path for the UK in regards to regulations could be to agree to at least match the EU standards-I've read recently that the UK has already rejected the idea of chlorinated chicken and as you say,UK food standards are pretty decent anyway.
The problem probably arises with the idiots who don't want to be seen as taking orders from the EU even though what is being proposed is the best way forward-ie:uncompromising high standards in regards to food and the environment. Fracking is pretty much frowned upon here by the general population with the exception of the fat cat energy companies.

Leroy42 · 24-01-2020 11:39am

RobMc59 wrote: »

The best path for the UK in regards to regulations could be to agree to at least match the EU standards-I've read recently that the UK has already rejected the idea of chlorinated chicken and as you say,UK food standards are pretty decent anyway.
The problem probably arises with the idiots who don't want to be seen as taking orders from the EU even though what is being proposed is the best way forward-ie:uncompromising high standards in regards to food and the environment. Fracking is pretty much frowned upon here by the general population with the exception of the fat cat energy companies.

It is not as simple as just agreeing to it. Who is the ultimate overseer of any possible disputes? Currently it is under the ECJ, but the UK have outright rejected that so in effect the the EU to trust them, but with no power for the EU to hold the UK to account, except for the ultimate sanction of closing the agreement.

So even if the UK agrees to stick with the same standards, how can the EU be certain that it will? Currently the EU, through its local agencies, are allowed to carry out inspections etc. And whilst of course there is a level of trust involved, breaches are open to sanctions such as fines (of which Ireland had been hit a few times).

So fine, on Day 1 all will be fine, but how do the EU know that the UK aren't bringing in GMO feeds? Or lead paint, or or or. It appears the UK simply want to EU to accept their handshake on it and leave at that.

But that raises another issue. If, if the EU were to accept that the UK could check their own standards, why would EU countries continue to abide by the ECJ when the UK are free of it. The EU would quickly be forced to give the same rights to al countries with the EU, and to many with which they already have trade deals.

Christy42 · 24-01-2020 11:59am

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is not as simple as just agreeing to it. Who is the ultimate overseer of any possible disputes? Currently it is under the ECJ, but the UK have outright rejected that so in effect the the EU to trust them, but with no power for the EU to hold the UK to account, except for the ultimate sanction of closing the agreement.

So even if the UK agrees to stick with the same standards, how can the EU be certain that it will? Currently the EU, through its local agencies, are allowed to carry out inspections etc. And whilst of course there is a level of trust involved, breaches are open to sanctions such as fines (of which Ireland had been hit a few times).

So fine, on Day 1 all will be fine, but how do the EU know that the UK aren't bringing in GMO feeds? Or lead paint, or or or. It appears the UK simply want to EU to accept their handshake on it and leave at that.

But that raises another issue. If, if the EU were to accept that the UK could check their own standards, why would EU countries continue to abide by the ECJ when the UK are free of it. The EU would quickly be forced to give the same rights to al countries with the EU, and to many with which they already have trade deals.

Surely that is the same as any country the EU has an agreement with. The UK will be expected to deal with deviation or lose the trade deal.

Leroy42 · 24-01-2020 12:35pm

Very true, but the UK, at least in the media and through their politicians, seem to think they it is not the same at all. That simply agreeing to standards is enough. Remember, it is not the standards, per se, that is the problem (few people have been able to clear examples of what exactly they don't like) but rather that the EU were driving the standards and the Uk had no input (untrue of course but that was the narrative).

So how are they going to feel when they accept standards when they have absolutely no input into them? Not in the make-up, not in the timeline. But still the problem is that without an overseeing body such as the ECJ then the only option to the EU is standards are deviated from is to cut access.

So you could easily have a situation where a UK company is sticking to EU standards, the EU changes those standards with no input from the UK, and the UK company is left out in the cold unless it manages to meet the new standards. But the UK is not demanding the new standard.

Also, an major problem, for both the EU and UK, is that there are clauses in agreements such as the Japanese deal, that forbids better deals bing struck with other parties without automatically being added to the agreement. So whilst the UK and EU may want to agree an easy and stress free agreement, countries like Japan are waiting in the wings and will be watching closely, and ready to look for the exact same.

Not to mention that whatever the UK get will be the very starting point of any possible trade deal with the US.

As usual, it appears that the UK seem to see Brexit as a stand alone issue, with no ramifications to any other party. This is not the case, either internally within the EU or externally with other 3rd parties.

johnnyskeleton · 24-01-2020 1:10pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

If the EU simply morphed into a larger version of the UK, with Westminster in complete control, Brexit would not even be a thing.

Exactly. Arguably the UN has a much greater power over the UK in terms of their territorial sovereignty* ; their migration policy** ; their military*** and their fishing (total amounts of fishing, rather than the nationality of those carrying out the fishing) **** than the EU does.

Unlike the EU, the UN has no democractically elected parliament, and although each country can select it's own representatives or even send their President/Prime Minister etc, the UN General Assembly typically consists of unelected Bureaucrats.

Further, the selection of the leader of the UN is done in conjunction with the Security Council. The Security Council is 5 permanent members who have been fixed for all time as the US, USSR(Russia), China (prev ROC, now PRC), UK and France. Any one of those unelected members can veto any proposal.

Logically, if they really objected to unelected bureaucrats where some countries hold disporportionate sway over others, which passes laws that affect the UK's laws and borders (though, to be fair, not their money), then they should leave the UN.

But they don't. Because they have veto power and get to lord it over the other countries. If Ireland and the UK had a dispute and brought it to the EU, there is as much a chance that Ireland would win as the UK, and it would all depend on who had the stronger argument. In the UN, Ireland could never beat the UK. Indeed, despite over a hundred nations voting against the UK in the Chagos Islands dispute, the UK and its 5 supporters still win out because of their enormous power from the security council and their ability to simply ignore the UN General Assembly.

So yeah, you're dead right. The UK, meaning primarily England, wants the EU to be undemocratic, and they want to be the ones imposing their will on the others. The fact that it is as democratic as it is possible to be in the circumstances is the greatest source of ire for them.

* Chagos Islands dispute etc
** the UN pact on Global Migration from Morocco in 2018 which the extremist anti-migrant pro-Brexit people seem to blame on the EU; and the UN Charter on the Status of Refugees, 1951; etc
*** UK has participated in (I understand) 68 peacekeeping missions as part of the UN, and is the fifth biggest contributor to their military operations budget. While I know it isn't a like for like comparison, this document says their contribution to EU common security is 2.3% of the total;
**** https://www.un.org/Depts/los/ocean_compact/SGs%20OCEAN%20COMPACT%202012-EN-low%20res.pdf

Zubeneschamali · 24-01-2020 1:20pm

Good article here about how the UK asserting the right to diverge will immediately incur costs even if they do not in fact diverge at all.

Strazdas · 24-01-2020 1:57pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

The best path for the UK in regards to regulations could be to agree to at least match the EU standards-I've read recently that the UK has already rejected the idea of chlorinated chicken and as you say,UK food standards are pretty decent anyway.
The problem probably arises with the idiots who don't want to be seen as taking orders from the EU even though what is being proposed is the best way forward-ie:uncompromising high standards in regards to food and the environment. Fracking is pretty much frowned upon here by the general population with the exception of the fat cat energy companies.

Agree to match the standards means you are not bound by the rules at all i.e. the trade deal is not worth the paper it's written on.

I was reading a European commentator saying this week that if the UK attempted this complete nonsense, the European Parliament would immediately vote down the trade deal (why would the EU27 have to follow the rules when Pirate UK couldn't be bothered?).

RobMc59 · 24-01-2020 5:38pm

Strazdas wrote: »

Agree to match the standards means you are not bound by the rules at all i.e. the trade deal is not worth the paper it's written on.

I was reading a European commentator saying this week that if the UK attempted this complete nonsense, the European Parliament would immediately vote down the trade deal (why would the EU27 have to follow the rules when Pirate UK couldn't be bothered?).

I meant a binding agreement to follow EU standards and if the UK dishonoured the agreement the penalty would be immediate suspension of access to the EU market,whether for goods or services.

Leroy42 · 24-01-2020 5:53pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

I meant a binding agreement to follow EU standards and if the UK dishonoured the agreement the penalty would be immediate suspension of access to the EU market, whether for goods or services.

But how can they agree to that? That is a far worse position than they had before. Although I see today that Javid has rowed back on his non alignment claim last week to say that of course they will stay close!

They don't appear to have a Scooby do what they want or what are they doing. This week alone they have claimed they are going to target a US trade deal 1st, an EU trade deal 1st, both EU and US at the same time, and also that Japan will give them a super trade deal above the current EU deal!

Johnson is demanding the quickest trade deal ever, and they haven't even worked out what they want, well apart from everything, for free!

PeadarCo · 24-01-2020 6:48pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

I meant a binding agreement to follow EU standards and if the UK dishonoured the agreement the penalty would be immediate suspension of access to the EU market,whether for goods or services.

The thing is from an Irish point of view and EU point of view that would be great. You would get the deal done very quickly.

However from the UK point of view its far worse than EU membership. The UK would be signing up to everything the EU parliament and commission agree on in add to accepting ECJ rulings. From a business perspective it would be great. But remember the whole point of Brexit was to "take back control". Given that most Brexiters ignored the control and influence the UK had as part of the EU I imagine most will kick up a storm if they were agree to your proposal. As your proposal means the UK losing complete control.

Again from an Irish point of view it would be absolutely fantastic if the UK did agree as it would potentially mean no change in the status quo from an economic perspective. I just don't see your proposal being accepted by the majority of UK MPs as much as I like your idea.

MrMusician18 · 24-01-2020 7:15pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

But how can they agree to that? That is a far worse position than they had before. Although I see today that Javid has rowed back on his non alignment claim last week to say that of course they will stay close!

They don't appear to have a Scooby do what they want or what are they doing. This week alone they have claimed they are going to target a US trade deal 1st, an EU trade deal 1st, both EU and US at the same time, and also that Japan will give them a super trade deal above the current EU deal!

Johnson is demanding the quickest trade deal ever, and they haven't even worked out what they want, well apart from everything, for free!

That is of course unless they don't want a deal with anyone, leaving the country ripe for the picking

johnnyskeleton · 24-01-2020 7:31pm

If anyone still thinks that the UK will be able to get an even sided (or even UK favouring) trade deal with the US, they might want to consider the following:

July, 2019 British Ambassador to the US resigns due to pressure from Trump

Jan, 2020 US refuses UK request for extradition of the wife of a US citizen who the US helped to flee the UK.

Obviously the Harry Dunn case was very sad and legally complicated by issues of diplomatic immunity, but it is increasingly clear that the US whims send the UK quiverring, and the UK legal requests are easily swatted away.

The trade deal between the US and the UK will be more one sided than the time Boris Johnson rugby tackled a 14 year old Malaysian school kid.

serfboard · 24-01-2020 7:35pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The trade deal between the US and the UK will be more one sided than the time Boris Johnson rugby tackled a 14 year old Malaysian school kid.

No, no, no - you've got it all wrong. The US will give the UK a great deal because reasons ...

An Ciarraioch · 24-01-2020 8:22pm

The EU, China and Brazil have established a parallel WTO Court to bypass the American veto:

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-sets-up-wto-court-with-group-of-countries-without-us/

Australia, NZ, Canada, Chile, South Korea, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland are among the other countries involved.

24-01-2020 8:27pm

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The EU, China and Brazil have established a parallel WTO Court to bypass the American veto:

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-sets-up-wto-court-with-group-of-countries-without-us/

Australia, NZ, Canada, Chile, South Korea, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland are among the other countries involved.

Interesting move and turbulent times.

Strazdas · 24-01-2020 9:06pm

RobMc59 wrote: »

I meant a binding agreement to follow EU standards and if the UK dishonoured the agreement the penalty would be immediate suspension of access to the EU market,whether for goods or services.

I think the only acceptable deal to the EU would be one where the UK signs up to the rules as part of the trade deal. Anything about "agreeing to follow" the rules would suggest that Britain was already planning on acting the eejit in future.

Ribs1234 · 24-01-2020 9:09pm

Did I read today that the uk is already diverging on the copy right laws coming soon? The point is not whether you think that the laws are good or bad, but that divergence is there before the ink is dry on the WA.

Bit cynical · 24-01-2020 9:21pm

Strazdas wrote: »

I was reading a European commentator saying this week that if the UK attempted this complete nonsense, the European Parliament would immediately vote down the trade deal (why would the EU27 have to follow the rules when Pirate UK couldn't be bothered?).

However other trade deals the EU have done don't involve the trading partner transposing all EU directives into national laws in perpetuity as far as I'm aware. EEA members like Norway have to do something like this at least for a subset of EU legislation but not, for example, Canada.

johnnyskeleton · 24-01-2020 9:39pm

Bit cynical wrote: »

However other trade deals the EU have done don't involve the trading partner transposing all EU directives into national laws in perpetuity as far as I'm aware. EEA members like Norway have to do something like this at least for a subset of EU legislation but not, for example, Canada.

Yeah. Its almost like the EU has already said that a Canada style trade deal is on offer but that its the lowest possible rung available, and the UK has said they want something higher and the EU said "fine, but to get something better you need regulatory allignment" and then the UK said no, no regulatory allignment.

Is that about the size of it?

Bit cynical · 24-01-2020 9:57pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yeah. Its almost like the EU has already said that a Canada style trade deal is on offer but that its the lowest possible rung available, and the UK has said they want something higher and the EU said "fine, but to get something better you need regulatory allignment" and then the UK said no, no regulatory allignment.

Is that about the size of it?

Well I think what will end up being agreed eventually will be something along the lines of the Canada deal. The precise sectors covered under the agreement will be the subject of negotiations. But it is likely to be a comprehensive free trade deal. It won't be the same as Canada because the trading relationship between the EU and Canada is not the same as between the EU and the UK. What is mutually beneficial in a EU-Canada deal is not the same as what is mutually beneficial in a UK-EU FTA. The EU may, for example, wish to avail of services provided by the UK whereas with Canada it may be some other sector.

Strazdas · 24-01-2020 10:10pm

Bit cynical wrote: »

However other trade deals the EU have done don't involve the trading partner transposing all EU directives into national laws in perpetuity as far as I'm aware. EEA members like Norway have to do something like this at least for a subset of EU legislation but not, for example, Canada.

The main problem will be that the UK is in Europe and will be a former full EU member. The UK cannot set itself up as a rival and competitor of the EU's, located only 20 miles from France. The EU can dictate whatever terms they like in the trade deal and don't have to follow any template.

Bit cynical · 24-01-2020 10:30pm

Strazdas wrote: »

The main problem will be that the UK is in Europe and will be a former full EU member. The UK cannot set itself up as a rival and competitor of the EU's, located only 20 miles from France. The EU can dictate whatever terms they like in the trade deal and don't have to follow any template.

However the reason for the Canada deal is that it is mutually beneficial despite the EU's larger size. The same will be true for EU-UK. I don't see the UK's proximity having as much of a bearing as you make out. Yes on the one hand it means a potential competitor on the EU's doorstep, but on the other hand, there is also proportionately more to be gained economically for both sides from that same proximity.

Of course, the precise details of the FTA will be the subject of negotiations over the year. One advantage of these negotiations over others is that the two sides will be, at least at the outset, in regulatory alignment even though there will be divergence over time.

CelticRambler · 24-01-2020 10:37pm

Bit cynical wrote: »

The EU may, for example, wish to avail of services provided by the UK ...

This sounds very much like Brexiters' wishful thinking, and a deep flaw in the FTA logic. What services can the UK provide that cannot be provided by one or more of the remaining 27 member states, or one of the future new members?

The simplistic answer might be "financial services" but that goes against the stated and implied ambitions of the EU to "take back control"

of the financial services industry, so a UK government that refuses to sign up to (e.g.) full GDPR regulation, or indicates that it'll happily hand over every byte of data to the Americans if asked, or can't quite promise to share information on Russian oligarch's money laundering activities in London ... well, that'll all be used by the EU as a good reason to prolong the negotiations sufficiently to replicate at home whatever key services have, to date, been provided by the third-country UK.

Bit cynical · 24-01-2020 10:39pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

This sounds very much like Brexiters' wishful thinking, and a deep flaw in the FTA logic. What services can the UK provide that cannot be provided by one or more of the remaining 27 member states, or one of the future new members?

In principle, of course, nothing. But then you have to ask yourself what is the point of any trade deal or for that matter trading bloc or customs union? Germany could say that they can, in theory, provide for themselves every thing that France supplies to them. The reason of course is that other countries may already be efficient in producing something so it makes sense to trade with them rather than try to replicate it at home.

Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments