Brexit discussion thread II

First Up

Bushmanpm wrote:

I'm grown up enough to take the facts and form my own opinion. Sadly, others can't by the looks of it.

You dismissed the report (hahahahaha etc.) on the basis of who reported it.

It is clear how you form your opinions.

murphaph

Calina wrote: »

Given that the UK appears to be operating under the illusion that any deal that gives them less than what they have in benefits now with none of the costs or responsibilities is punitive, then I fear the UK is on a loser.

Indeed. They simply don't get it that club membership brings certain benefits (eg rights to sell services across borders, something no current FTA allows in such scope) but expect to retain these benefits post exit by negotiating a "special" deal. The problem is, normal WTO rules hurt the EU (excluding Ireland) far less than the UK and a normal FTA like CETA also hurts the EU far less again. The UK is the side that need accommodation for their service sector.

solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

Given that the UK appears to be operating under the illusion that any deal that gives them less than what they have in benefits now with none of the costs or responsibilities is punitive, then I fear the UK is on a loser.

Good morning!

That's not true. That's why I refer to CETA. A third country deal may be more restrictive than today in respect to trade but it would still ensure that the vast majority can continue.

Then the UK can maximise other trading relationships it has with other countries.

A highly restrictive deal with a huge payment (over €100bn) and continued free movement wouldn't be worth it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Yes, it is a worst case scenario.

However the EU needs to be clear that the UK won't accept any deal under the sun, especially a punitive one. If it becomes clear that the EU isn't even going to engage with the UK position then a walk out at the least is necessary. The UK would take a hit but it is capable of doing so. If the EU took that stance I would definitely say that the UK should stay out.

I'm still of the view that is nonsense considering the reports of British and European negotiators discussing both Northern Ireland and the financial settlement at length at the start of this week.

The European Commission also defended Davis' leaving early saying that chief negotiators are not expected to be there all the time.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

Given that the UK appears to be operating under the illusion that any deal that gives them less than what they have in benefits now with none of the costs or responsibilities is punitive, then I fear the UK is on a loser.

No, no, no. At this stage in the negotiations both sides are just jockeying for position, bidding high because they know they will have to compromise in order to get a deal, and they want to stake out positions which are so advantageous to themselves that they can compromise, give ground, yield a little, and still end up in a somewhat favourable position. This is all standard negotiating stuff.

"Punitive" is a vague concept which the UK is invoking to give itself room to compromise. By signalling that they won't accept a "punitive" deal, they are impliedly stating that there is a "non-punitive" space within which they can deal. ("Yes, we compromised on A, B and C to make a deal, but we did that because the EU's demand that we compromise on those areas wasn't punitive.")

And one of the strengths of a term like "punitive" here is that it's pretty non-specific. Saying that "we won't accept a punitive deal" doesn't really tie the UK down very much as to which deals they can accept and which they can't. There aren't any hostages to fortune in there. If the UK said, e.g., "we won't accept a deal that doesn't include zero tariffs", that actually would be a line in the sand that it would be difficult or embarrassing to walk away from. "Punitive" doesn't carry any baggage like that.

As the negotiations proceed, expect the UK side to say "punitive" a lot less, and indeed to talk less about what deal they don't want, and more about what they do. Expect terms like "just", "fair", "reasonable", "mutually beneficial" and so forth to feature more and more. But also terms that indicate that the UK hasn't been a pushover - "hard-fought", "tough", etc.

The EU side is also positioning itself, but it has less need to position itself in precisely this way. The truth is that the EU has the much better bargaining position; it holds all the cards, and the UK needs a deal here much more than the EU does. Both sides know this. It's in the UK's interest to accept any reasonable deal that the EU is willing to offer. What the EU needs to do is to make acceptance politically feasible for the UK. Hence they start out by painting the UK as unprepared, unrealistic, etc, etc. As negotiations proceed expect them to admit to being more and more impressed by the UK's attitude, toughness, surprising realism, positive and creative approach, etc, etc. This enables the UK negotiators to present themselves as having gained ground for the UK in the negotiations, which makes the final deal easier to sell in the UK. If you don't hear these noises coming from the EU side in the next few months, that means the negotiations really aren't going well.

As for Davis not hanging around for the nitty-gritty of the negotiations, that's fine at this early stage. The daily grind is not his job. He and Barnier are the people to whom the front-line negotiating teams report back, and to whom they will go when they want direction, or decisions on matters of principle, or when they have identified seemingly intractable problems. To be useful in breaking logjams, Davis and Barnier need to be not part of the logjam in the first place.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

A highly restrictive deal with a huge payment (over €100bn) and continued free movement wouldn't be worth it.

This is money which the UK government agrees it owes. You don't know how it will be calculated, but you already have a number in your head which is too much?

Is this how you treat restaurant bills? Or only when Boris is at dinner?

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

A highly restrictive deal with a huge payment (over €100bn) and continued free movement wouldn't be worth it.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is money which the UK government agrees it owes. You don't know how it will be calculated, but you already have a number in your head which is too much?

Is this how you treat restaurant bills? Or only when Boris is at dinner?

No, no. Read more carefully, Zub. What Solo says is unacceptable is the combination of highly restrictive trade, a large exit bill and continued free movement. What that signals is that these things can be traded off against one another; if the EU can offer low trade restrictions, then the UK can talk flexibly about the exit bill and/or some degree of free movement.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, no. Read more carefully, Zub. What Solo says is unacceptable is the combination of highly restrictive trade, a large exit bill and continued free movement.

Sure, but what I am pointing out that the "large" size of the bill is neither here not there. They agree that they owe money. Solo has no idea how that bill will be calculated.

But apparently, it better not be over €100bn?

Perhaps you are suggesting that the Brexiteers have signalled that €100bn is unacceptable because they believe the real figure will be €60bn-ish, and this is just huffing and puffing? So that they can claim a win when the real bill arrives?

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps you are suggesting that the Brexiteers have signalled that €100bn is unacceptable because they believe the real figure will be €60bn-ish, and this is just huffing and puffing? So that they can claim a win when the real bill arrives?

This. Lots of fairly casually-estimated figures have been bandied about, and from memory €100bn is towards the top of the range. On the assumption that the top-of-the-range figures (and the bottom-of-the-range figures) will have come from people staking out negotiating positions from which they expect to move, all that "we won't pay €100bn!" means is "we expect you to move from your initial position so that we can deal with you".

The bottom line here that both sides want a deal. Neither wants a deal at any price, but they do want a deal. And both sides know that there's plenty of middle ground where, in economic terms at least, there are possible deals which are better for both sides than no deal would be. Therefore, if both sides are sensible and rational and act on purely material considerations, there will be a deal.

The problem is, of course, that there are emotional and symbolic and political considerations on both sides, as well as the purely economic ones, and those are the considerations which could stymie a deal if not handled with care and respect on both sides. If, say, May draws a firm line and says that there can be no role for the European Court of Justice in any aspect of UK/EU relations (and, NB, she hasn't said this) that could be a real problem. (That's just an example. I'm not saying that such a problem can only arise from the UK side.) Both sides will want to avoid this too, but it's not always easy to avoid.

My prediction is that if talks break down and there is no deal, it won't be over economic issues, but over a symbolic/political issue like this.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

The problem is, of course, that there are emotional and symbolic and political considerations on both sides, as well as the purely economic ones, and those are the considerations which could stymie a deal if not handled with care and respect on both sides. If, say, May draws a firm line and says that there can be no role for the European Court of Justice in any aspect of UK/EU relations (and, NB, she hasn't said this) that could be a real problem. (That's just an example. I'm not saying that such a problem can only arise from the UK side.) Both sides will want to avoid this too, but it's not always easy to avoid.

My prediction is that if talks break down and there is no deal, it won't be over economic issues, but over a symbolic/political issue like this.

Well the talk from Theresa May has been about taking back control from the EU regarding immigration and not being in a situation where the ECJ has any jurisdiction. This surely means where the ECJ makes judgments where the UK is involved and it is a red line?

Theresa May wrote:

She added: "Let me be clear: We are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice."

Now this was said before the recent election but I am not sure if her stance has changed, especially as she is being known now for u-turning on almost every policy. Do you think she will want to be seen u-turning on another?

Brexit: PM Theresa May says UK will 'make own decisions on immigration'

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

Well the talk from Theresa May has been about taking back control from the EU regarding immigration and not being in a situation where the ECJ has any jurisdiction. This surely means where the ECJ makes judgments where the UK is involved and it is a red line?

I think you'll find that it's at best a red dotted line; there will be gaps.

For instance, the UK (for good reasons, in the UK's interest) wants to continue to participate in the European Patent Office system. But that system involves disputes over patents being resolved, ultimately, by the ECJ, and nobody imagines for an instant the UK can participate in the system but be allowed to exempt itself from, or ignore, patent rulings from the ECJ. And, if you think about it, that would be a wildly unreasonable thing for the UK to demand, or to expect to get.

So we move very quickly from a position where the UK says "we won't be bound by the ECJ" to one where it says "we won't be bound by the ECJ, except in relation to questions of European Patent Law". But once you've admitted one "except", there's obviously scope for others, and soon we're negotiating about where the ECJ will have a jurisdiction that applies to the UK, and where it won't.

Enzokk wrote: »

Now this was said before the recent election but I am not sure if her stance has changed, especially as she is being known now for u-turning on almost every policy. Do you think she will want to be seen u-turning on another?

Obviously, she'd rather present this kind of thing as not a U-turn, but flexible and creative negotiation in Britain's interests.

What she wants to do is state a strong (but, when read carefully, not absolutist) position so as to win elections/command the support of the neanderthal right of her own party, and then display confidence, flexiblity and other political virtues in negotiating from that position to some more nuanced position to secure a deal in the UK's best interests.

Clearly, the line between that and "U-turn!" is a fairly blurred one and is more a matter of presentation and spin than of substance. And if we've learned anything in recent weeks it's that presentation and spin are not May's strong suit. So this is a balancing act which, in the end, she may not pull off successfully.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you'll find that it's at best a red dotted line; there will be gaps.

For instance, the UK (for good reasons, in the UK's interest) wants to continue to participate in the European Patent Office system. But that system involves disputes over patents being resolved, ultimately, by the ECJ, and nobody imagines for an instant the UK can participate in the system but be allowed to exempt itself from, or ignore, patent rulings from the ECJ. And, if you think about it, that would be a wildly unreasonable thing for the UK to demand, or to expect to get.

So we move very quickly from a position where the UK says "we won't be bound by the ECJ" to one where it says "we won't be bound by the ECJ, except in relation to questions of European Patent Law". But once you've admitted one "except", there's obviously scope for others, and soon we're negotiating about where the ECJ will have a jurisdiction that applies to the UK, and where it won't.

I think we can agree that the mentions of leaving the ECJ jurisdiction was hasty from the PM. Maybe she didn't understand what it would involve practically?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obviously, she'd rather present this kind of thing as not a U-turn, but flexible and creative negotiation in Britain's interests.

What she wants to do is state a strong (but, when read carefully, not absolutist) position so as to win elections/command the support of the neanderthal right of her own party, and then display confidence, flexiblity and other political virtues in negotiating from that position to some more nuanced position to secure a deal in the UK's best interests.

Clearly, the line between that and "U-turn!" is a fairly blurred one and is more a matter of presentation and spin than of substance. And if we've learned anything in recent weeks it's that presentation and spin are not May's strong suit. So this is a balancing act which, in the end, she may not pull off successfully.

She has given up the chance not to make it seem like a u-turn though. She is the one that said she wants to leave the ECJ jurisdiction. No-one forced her to state this in such a forceful manner. David Cameron was very good as sounding authoritative when he declared he will go to the EU to get a better deal for the UK before the referendum when every man and his dog knew it was just showboating and he would try to spin what he came back with as the reason to back remain. He couldn't sell it to the newspapers, and in turn the public.

Theresa May is no David Cameron. I think she has zero chance of spinning anything of as not u-turning after what she has proclaimed before. That is the problem with trying to appear strong, or in her case "bloody difficult". She will now have to be difficult to not look weak, even if it harms the country. And you know once she shows weakness others will be queuing up waiting to feast on her political corpse, like wild dogs eating their prey alive after catching it.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, no. Read more carefully, Zub. What Solo says is unacceptable is the combination of highly restrictive trade, a large exit bill and continued free movement. What that signals is that these things can be traded off against one another; if the EU can offer low trade restrictions, then the UK can talk flexibly about the exit bill and/or some degree of free movement.

Good morning!

Kind of - anything over €100bn would be unacceptable in any case. I think it should only be paid once trade terms become clear under the nothing is agreed until everything is agreed principle.

Freedom of movement must be restricted. I think a relatively light touch restriction on low wage labour would suffice to ensure that there isn't an undercutting of labour in certain sectors. Something similar to the proposed but never implemented Tier 3 visa would suffice with a broader more liberal visa for highly skilled workers which would ensure free movement subject to employment.

I think both of those are reasonable positions that address the underlying concerns of the referendum. I want the UK to be an open, global and progressive country after Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

Anyone Irish in the UK stating that FOM must be restricted is being hypocritical. Worth noting that the position of Irish people in the UK is disimproved by May's current offer for post Brexit rights.

solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

Anyone Irish in the UK stating that FOM must be restricted is being hypocritical. Worth noting that the position of Irish people in the UK is disimproved by May's current offer for post Brexit rights.

Good morning!

Firstly - no it isn't hypocritical to think that the Government should respond to people's concerns. Carte blanche free movement has caused an oversupply of labour in certain areas.

Secondly - what rights have been diminished? In the position paper it seems like the CTA and it's provisions still stand.

I'm happy to be subject to any immigration rules that apply.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

For instance, the UK (for good reasons, in the UK's interest) wants to continue to participate in the European Patent Office system. But that system involves disputes over patents being resolved, ultimately, by the ECJ, and nobody imagines for an instant the UK can participate in the system but be allowed to exempt itself from, or ignore, patent rulings from the ECJ. And, if you think about it, that would be a wildly unreasonable thing for the UK to demand, or to expect to get.

Some precisions just for clarification, Peregrinus: the European Patent System never had anything to do with the EU, and still won't have anything to do with the EU.

It is borne from the European Patent Convention (establishing the European Patent Office in Munich, The Hague and Berlin) and is its own jurisdiction, just like (e.g.) the ECHR (establishing the ECtHR in Strasbourg) and the GATT (establishing the WTO in Geneva) are.

The UPCA (the new agreement which the UK wants into) is setting up its own Courts (1 in Paris, STEM subject-matters; 1 in London (...for now anyway), biology/biotech subject-matter), but will recognise the primacy of EU law and, at that, more as a fudge to finally bring the whole thing about (patent rights owners have been waiting 40 years for a pan-European patent litigation system!) than by design: the ECJ's role in that context, will be solely to resolve matters of interpretation and -in so doing- harmonize case law to ensure it conforms with this primacy principle. The ECJ will not be deciding patent disputes as such, but ensure that legal interpretation (in a patent dispute context) by the UPC Courts remains compliant with (more fundamental-) market-harmonizing EU legislation.

The UPC Courts will be deciding these disputes, and the bulk of case law which the UPC Courts shall inherit on day one, is that of the European Patent Office (Boards of Appeal and Enlarged Boards of Appeal decisions since 1973).

The UPC Courts will (only-) refer question of legislative interpretation to the ECJ if, as and when needed, in the exact same manner higher courts the length and breadth of the EU have done for decades.

And there's the irony and fallacy of May's proclamations, in one: the ECJ doesn't make EU law, it never has, it just interprets it. The EU Parliament makes EU law, together with the Commission.

Peregrinus wrote: »

So we move very quickly from a position where the UK says "we won't be bound by the ECJ" to one where it says "we won't be bound by the ECJ, except in relation to questions of European Patent Law". But once you've admitted one "except", there's obviously scope for others, and soon we're negotiating about where the ECJ will have a jurisdiction that applies to the UK, and where it won't.

In full agreement with that, and Enzokk's comment about May's hastiness.

Hers was typical of the politician's ever-shorter attention span to details (which matter rather a lot to something like Brexit) the higher office they reach, hand-in-hand with her deep-seated hatred of, I'd say, more the ECtHR (the irony!) than the CJEU as such.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

Anyone Irish in the UK stating that FOM must be restricted is being hypocritical. Worth noting that the position of Irish people in the UK is disimproved by May's current offer for post Brexit rights.

Good morning!

Firstly - no it isn't hypocritical to think that the Government should respond to people's concerns. Carte blanche free movement has caused an oversupply of labour in certain areas.

Secondly - what rights have been diminished? In the position paper it seems like the CTA and it's provisions still stand.

I'm happy to be subject to any immigration rules that apply.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First read here.

https://twitter.com/SimonFRCox/status/881425032106450944

In summary the rights of your family to join you are limited under current offer - this you enjoy as an EU citizen and not as the CTA exists. Your right not to be deported except in certain cases also comes into play. Also note that these can be changed at the discretion of the UK government. They did this with Commonwealth citizens in the 1960s AFAIK. Here is some background on that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Immigrants_Act_1962

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm happy to be subject to any immigration rules that apply.

You must be rather invested in the UK then, for you to forego your acquired rights with such abandonment.

Speaking of diminished rights, I hear the Dutch (and all other EU nationals not permitted to maintain a double nationality) intending to continue residing in the UK are in a bit of a pickle: for the time being, it's either gamble on May's offer retrograding their rights and with wholly uncertain consequences in years to come, or take the British nationality and surrender their own.

Chips Lovell

murphaph wrote: »

I think ambro is referring to the fact that the likes of Germany will send a jobless Brit (or Paddy or Pierre) packing if they attempt to draw benefits for longer than 3 months after arriving and that up to the 5 year mark they do not have permanent residency and can be removed from Germany (etc.) to their EU! country of origin if they become a burden on the host nation. Only after 5 years can EU nationals remain even if they are a burden on the host nation.

The EU rules have been in place for years. You can move to country x, transferring your benefits from country y (most likely your home country) for up to 3 months, after which time country y can cut you off and country x can ask you to prove means to support yourself or remove you.

The UK simply never bothered enforcing these EU! rules to prevent benefits tourism by EU nationals (but in reality I suspect the levels of benefits tourism are quite low with the vast majority of EU migrants coming to the UK to actually work and pay tax).

Further evidence of this emerged in parliament yesterday:

A Home Office minister has refused to say whether the British government has ever made use of EU-wide immigration rules that allow people to be expelled from a country if they are not working or actively seeking employment.

Lady Susan Williams admitted that the UK’s interpretation of the European directive governing the free movement of workers was “more than generous” in comparison with other European countries.

She suggested that her department did not hold data that would allow it to know whether European immigrants in the UK had secured jobs or not.

LeinsterDub

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/18/eu-talks-divided-over-britains-brexit-divorce-bill-mooted-at-66bn

has improved after the British government admitted last week it had debts to the EU. A statement to parliament on Thursday that the UK has financial “obligations” from its EU membership helped defuse a potentially toxic row that was brewing, after the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, said Brussels should “go whistle” for the money.

An other flip flop. Maybe the EU can whistle rule britannia as a concession?

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

anything over €100bn would be unacceptable in any case.

Why? Because Boris said so?

The UK government have already acknowledged that they have commitments and will not walk away from them. We have not yet seen how the bill will be calculated.

Saying, before the bill is presented, that €100bn is "unacceptable" is silly. It's like drinking all evening in the bar, and then yelling that the tab had better not be over £100 or else.

First Up

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Saying, before the bill is presented, that €100bn is "unacceptable" is silly. It's like drinking all evening in the bar, and then yelling that the tab had better not be over £100 or else.

Well seeing as Brexit is like amputating your foot because of an ingrown toenail, is it any surprise that they don't want to pay the surgeon - while complaining they can't wiggle their toes?

Fratton Fred

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is money which the UK government agrees it owes. You don't know how it will be calculated, but you already have a number in your head which is too much?

Is this how you treat restaurant bills? Or only when Boris is at dinner?

Neither party has agreed to anything yet and neither party has so much as mentioned a figure, so this us all moot at the moment.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-divorce-bill/

God knows how they will establish this, just think how complex leaving the EIB will be.

Thomas__

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

anything over €100bn would be unacceptable in any case.

Why? Because Boris said so?

The UK government have already acknowledged that they have commitments and will not walk away from them. We have not yet seen how the bill will be calculated.

Saying, before the bill is presented, that €100bn is "unacceptable" is silly. It's like drinking all evening in the bar, and then yelling that the tab had better not be over £100 or else.

That´s the way the many of the Brexiteers think and talk, or in case of the poster you were replying to, write. Those people prove by themselves that they are the most unreliable and narrowminded no-one can really negotiate with. This is and will be the reason for why the UK walks out of the EU with no deal in her hands. But they won´t get away without paying their commitments. I can imagine that when court rules fail (in case there will be one and the Brexiteers simply going to ignore the verdict) there might be sanctions following from the EU towards the ex-EU-UK to make them pay one way or another.  

The only way that can save the Brits from disaster is for them to get a new GE and vote for another govt. Otherwise, the Brits will be exposed as unreliable on the whole international stage and any other non-EU country considering to make deals with them will certainly think twice before they even go into negotiations. Such behaviour damages the international reputation that hard that it will be very difficult to restore trust in the Brits anymore. It´d be very stupid of them, less to talk about the selfishness mind of the Brexiteers.

Since this BrexitRef, hardly one week goes by in which the Brexiteers don´t come up with one sillyness that tops the foregone one. I really never had thought that I were to witness such a decline in selfrespect and reliabilty by any UK govt. It´s really astonishing what is going on since and one negative perceptions follows the other. It also exposed the sheer madness of these Brexit people.

solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

First read here.
https://twitter.com/SimonFRCox/status/881425032106450944

In summary the rights of your family to join you are limited under current offer - this you enjoy as an EU citizen and not as the CTA exists. Your right not to be deported except in certain cases also comes into play. Also note that these can be changed at the discretion of the UK government. They did this with Commonwealth citizens in the 1960s AFAIK. Here is some background on that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Immigrants_Act_1962

Good evening!

A few things. British citizens also have to apply for marriage visas for non-EU partners. I see no reason. Why this shouldn't be the same for everyone living in the UK. Tying up a discrepancy isn't the same thing as wholesale removing the rights of Irish people.

I appreciate that the British government can change the law. I believe this is highly unlikely given the constitutional status of Northern Ireland in British politics but I'm willing to be subject to all UK legislation in respect to immigration.

The final legislation will be subject to international law so the idea of the UK wholesale refusing to abide by the agreement is lessened. If they do that the entire agreement should lapse.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Jim2007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

For example, a coffee shop in Cork might get a 20% discount off the local dairy because they use 50 litres of milk per day. Apple may also buy milk off the local dairy, but despite them being the biggest company on the planet, only buy 10 litres of milk per day, so the dairy only gives them a 5% discount.

The thing is that there is more than one dairy and that sale is 48% of your turn over. Competing on price is never a good option for a European country because the cost structure is an issue - the worker will take the hit.

An Ciarraioch

2016: 65,000 UK applications for Irish passports

2017: Over 100,000 UK applications up to June 30th:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/19/irish-passport-rush-demand-jumps-50-per-cent-since-brexit-vote

Fratton Fred

Jim2007 wrote: »

The thing is that there is more than one dairy and that sale is 48% of your turn over. Competing on price is never a good option for a European country because the cost structure is an issue - the worker will take the hit.

Welcome to free market economics.

Capt'n Midnight

Good thing there's a magic money tree to pay for all the extra costs after Brexit.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40658774

Six million men and women will have to wait a year longer than they expected to get their state pension, the government has announced.

The rise in the pension age to 68 will now be phased in between 2037 and 2039, rather than from 2044 as was originally proposed.

Those affected are currently between the ages of 39 and 47.
...

Anyone younger than 39 will have to wait for future announcements to learn what their precise pension age will be.

But credit card surcharges are to be banned.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40648641

Jim2007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Welcome to free market economics.

Given your starting point and example I guess we can now conclude that you accept it will not go well for the average worker who voted for BREXIT after all!

Thomas__

Jim2007 wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Welcome to free market economics.

Given your starting point and example I guess we can now conclude that you accept it will not go well for the average worker who voted for BREXIT after all!

That´s already clear to everyone except the Brexiteers. In another example, in the USA some of the average workers who voted for Trump are already realising what disservice they´ve done to themselves by voting for him. I´d expect the same see to happen among some average workers who voted for Brexit.

Thomas__

ambro25 wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm happy to be subject to any immigration rules that apply.

You must be rather invested in the UK then, for you to forego your acquired rights with such abandonment.

Speaking of diminished rights, I hear the Dutch (and all other EU nationals not permitted to maintain a double nationality) intending to continue residing in the UK are in a bit of a pickle: for the time being, it's either gamble on May's offer retrograding their rights and with wholly uncertain consequences in years to come, or take the British nationality and surrender their own.

Others living in the UK went the opposite direction:


https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0719/891448-passports/

Over 500,000 Irish passports have been issued by the Passport Service so far this year, according to Minister for Foreign Affairs Simon Coveney.
He said that applications for passports have increased by an average of 10% over the same period last year.
Mr Coveney said concerns surrounding Brexit have led to a rise in the number of applications. 
He said the Passport Service has seen a significant rise in the number of citizens from the UK applying for an Irish passport this year.
The minister added that there is a general buoyancy in the Irish economy, which means more people are moving to Ireland with more people "wanting to be Irish". 
He said it looks like 800,000 passports will be issued in 2017.
...

It´s really cruel what Brexit is doing to many people. I also noticed the stance of the Netherlands govt on dual citizenship, doesn´t make it easier for Dutch people living in the UK. They, like many others who don´t have the prospect of becoming people with dual citizenship are lost to this limbo and being the "bargaining chips" for the Brexiteers.

Fratton Fred

Jim2007 wrote: »

Given your starting point and example I guess we can now conclude that you accept it will not go well for the average worker who voted for BREXIT after all!

You do know competitive bidding has nothing to do with the eu, Brexit or anything else, don't you?

Jim2007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You do know competitive bidding has nothing to do with the eu, Brexit or anything else, don't you?

Dear lord, really!!!

The point is that that competitive means that the UK will have to compete on a cost basis with countries that have a far lower cost structure. The means the UK is going to have to cut costs and the UK worker is the one going to take the hit.

The UK is about to leave a market representing 48% of it's exports and one it which it has preferential treatment to trade as a third country. It does not take a genius to figure out this will not go well for the typical worker.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You do know competitive bidding has nothing to do with the eu, Brexit or anything else, don't you?

I think Brexited UK companies intending to bid for public work tendered within the EU would end up disagreeing with that: just another amongst the myriad non-tariff barriers which the UK is running headlong into, until and unless settled through negotiations or a trading agreement.

Considering the degree of preparation of the UK government (Ministries) as known to me personally (in the context of IP), I wouldn't bet on any Whitehall type having even considered that particular issue (EU tenders) yet.

Fratton Fred

Jim2007 wrote: »

Dear lord, really!!!

The point is that that competitive means that the UK will have to compete on a cost basis with countries that have a far lower cost structure. The means the UK is going to have to cut costs and the UK worker is the one going to take the hit.

How is that different to the current situation?

Jim2007 wrote: »

The UK is about to leave a market representing 48% of it's exports and one it which it has preferential treatment to trade as a third country. It does not take a genius to figure out this will not go well for the typical worker.

I don't think it will go well for anyone really, but for the typical worker who has to compete in a rave to the bottom as far as salaries goes because of constant immigration from lower cost countries may not see it that way.

Jim2007

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How is that different to the current situation?

After all these posts are you saying that you don't understand the current situation for UK companies trading in the EU? If so then really there is little point in setting out again. It is time to move on.

swampgas

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I don't think it will go well for anyone really, but for the typical worker who has to compete in a race to the bottom as far as salaries goes because of constant immigration from lower cost countries may not see it that way.

Assuming that protecting the typical UK worker is your goal, and you think immigration is causing a race to the bottom, surely a better option for the UK would be to actually implement the legally allowed controls on immigration from the EU, and restrict immigration from outside the EU (which can be done anytime)? And stay in the single market?

Right now you seem to have a government loath to actually restrict immigration (despite all their rhetoric) yet determined to pull out of a huge single market that provides lots of employment.

It seems to me that May would like to get rid of external court oversight so she can deport the occasional hate preacher, I really don't think she intends to restrict immigration in any meaningful way.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How is that different to the current situation?

Currently, the notional UK employer of the notional UK worker in the UK, to supply the <EU28> demand for <good/service>, competes on a level playing field with the notional <EU27> employer of the notional <EU27> worker in the <EU27> country.

Post-Brexit, the notional UK employer of the notional UK worker in the UK, to supply the <EU28> demand for <good/service>, still competes with the notional <EU27> employer of the notional <EU27> worker in the <EU27> country, but not a level playing field anymore: the UK cost base is impacted by additional tariffs, customs processing, regulatory compliance checks, other NTBs, <etc.>, because the UK is not in the club anymore, and so now subjected to them like everybody else outside the club.

Meanwhile, the cost base of the notional <EU27> competitors remains unchanged, so the notional <EU27> competitors all gain a cost advantage over the notional UK employer. Through doing nothing, which is bonus for them :pac:

Before or after Brexit, the notional UK employer of the notional UK worker in the UK, still competes with notional <non-EU> employers of notional <non-EU> workers outside the EU of course. Only now, the UK employer does not enjoy the 'protective' relief from the EU tariffs, customs processing, regulatory compliance checks, other NTBs <etc.>, and so competes with them on a more level playing field (more level for the notional <non-EU> employers).

All things (overall procedural costs of goods entering the EU27) being equal, the UK employer must align his cost base on those of his non-EU competitors (FTA'd ones or not, depending on what relationship the UK gets with the EU).

That means either trimming profitability levels, and/or driving down labour costs (and other overheads), and/or increasing productivity (bearing in mind the UK starts from a red lantern position compared to many <EU27> employers, never mind the <non-EU> ones). Guess which?

I wonder if Foxconn are scouting in the UK yet? :pac:

Zubeneschamali

swampgas wrote: »

Assuming that protecting the typical UK worker is your goal, and you think immigration is causing a race to the bottom, surely a better option for the UK would be to actually implement the legally allowed controls on immigration from the EU, and restrict immigration from outside the EU (which can be done anytime)? And stay in the single market?

There is not much point in telling Fred he should have voted Remain. He did. He said so, and made the case at the time. He thinks Brexit is a bad idea.

He is just trying to make the best of it, and reacting to what he sees as anti-British sentiment.

sondagefaux

I presume everyone contributing to this thread keeps up to date with the www.eureferendum.com blog?

It's written by Richard North, a former UKIP candidate and pro-Brexit campaigner.

However, he's fiercely critical of the approach to Brexit being taken by the UK government, and the complacency with which much of UK society, politicians, business and the media especially, views the prospect of a 'no deal' Brexit.

He wants the UK to remain in the Single Market (basically the 'Norway models', via membership of EFTA - the European Free Trade Association and adherence to the EEA (European Economic Area) Agreement) for a lengthy transitional period, years or even decades, while the UK develops its trading relationships with the rest of the world and develops its own regulatory regimes and capacities, based on international regulatory co-operation and trade co-operation through international bodies.

I don't agree with his final destination (what he calls Flexcit) as I think it's never going to happen - the proposal would basically require the EU to voluntarily give up most of its powers and for a multiplicity of states to agree with his vision on a more-or-less permanent basis - and I prefer the EU model anyway.

But the transitional proposals (realistically they'd probably end up being permanent arrangements) are about the only way for the UK to avoid a huge blow to its economy and society.

He has a depth of knowledge about the EU and how it works which puts most British politicians and journalists to shame and he is deeply pessimistic about the chances of the UK successfully leaving the UK without doing major harm to itself unless there's a radical change in thinking and a radical new degree of realism features in the debates taking place now in the UK, debates which should have taken place before the referendum vote or at least before the UK made the Article 50 notification.

Whether you're pro- or anti-Brexit you should read this blog.

sondagefaux

swampgas wrote: »

Assuming that protecting the typical UK worker is your goal, and you think immigration is causing a race to the bottom, surely a better option for the UK would be to actually implement the legally allowed controls on immigration from the EU, and restrict immigration from outside the EU (which can be done anytime)? And stay in the single market?

Right now you seem to have a government loath to actually restrict immigration (despite all their rhetoric) yet determined to pull out of a huge single market that provides lots of employment.

It seems to me that May would like to get rid of external court oversight so she can deport the occasional hate preacher, I really don't think she intends to restrict immigration in any meaningful way.

A recent survey found that the majority of people asked would be happy for the UK to implement freedom of movement if there were restrictions placed on migrants from EU/EEA countries, such as the right to deport them if they came to the UK looking for work or to look for study opportunities but hadn't found a job/college place after three months and if their ability to claim benefits was restricted for a period after their arrival in the UK.

However, as it stands, EU states can kick out other EU/EEA citizens if they haven't found work/started study after three months anyway (unless they're joining other family members) and the UK doesn't allow people to claim benefits for the first three months after their arrival in the UK, including non-emergency NHS treatment.

The fact is that the UK has simply failed to enforce existing restrictions on freedom of movement available within EU law and also fails to enforce its own laws on labour standards (e.g. minimum wage, leave, other terms and conditions) which allow employers to get away with mistreating workers.

If the UK actually bothered to enforce the laws already available to it, workers would be protected from exploitative employers.

Water John

May meeting business leaders again. I think they are really getting worried, with absence of direction and putting on pressure.

Jim2007

sondagefaux wrote: »

He wants the UK to remain in the Single Market (basically the 'Norway models', via membership of EFTA - the European Free Trade Association and adherence to the EEA (European Economic Area) Agreement) for a lengthy transitional period, years or even decades, while the UK develops its trading relationships with the rest of the world and develops its own regulatory regimes and capacities, based on international regulatory co-operation and trade co-operation through international bodies.

And this is the exact kind of nonsense that has them where the are - no where. You can't be in the EEA and be off developing you stuff at the same time. It is not compatible.

solodeogloria

Jim2007 wrote: »

And this is the exact kind of nonsense that has them where the are - no where. You can't be in the EEA and be off developing you stuff at the same time. It is not compatible.

Good morning,

Not that I'm looking for the most lengthy transition in the world but it is compatible.

Iceland is in the EEA but also has the freedom to sign free trade agreements. Iceland has just signed one with China.

That's something to note for those who claim that China wouldn't be interested in a free trade deal with the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

sondagefaux

Jim2007 wrote: »

And this is the exact kind of nonsense that has them where the are - no where. You can't be in the EEA and be off developing you stuff at the same time. It is not compatible.

The EEA is the EU plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, all three are members of EFTA.

Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein are free to do trade deals with other non-EU countries, either collectively via EFTA or individually.

Any country in the EU or the EEA could plan its own future regulatory system and standards in preparation for withdrawal while remaining a member.

They couldn't implement them while remaining a member, but they could draw them up, ready for implementation upon withdrawal, while being a member.

Nothing in EU law prevents member states from planning their own regulations as long as they don't try to implement them during their membership.

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

Not that I'm looking for the most lengthy transition in the world but it is compatible.

Iceland is in the EEA but also has the freedom to sign free trade agreements. Iceland has just signed one with China.

That's something to note for those who claim that China wouldn't be interested in a free trade deal with the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

China is always interested in signing a FTA; they get to dump their steel etc. from state supported companies in your country without you complaining and you get token access to markets they can't be bothered with atm and will shut down if they want to start up internal production instead. The problem is to get a FTA with China that actually benefits you as well as China as seen in the multiple WTO disputes both Europe and USA has had with them.

sondagefaux

ambro25 wrote: »

Currently, the notional UK employer of the notional UK worker in the UK, to supply the <EU28> demand for <good/service>, competes on a level playing field with the notional <EU27> employer of the notional <EU27> worker in the <EU27> country.

Post-Brexit, the notional UK employer of the notional UK worker in the UK, to supply the <EU28> demand for <good/service>, still competes with the notional <EU27> employer of the notional <EU27> worker in the <EU27> country, but not a level playing field anymore: the UK cost base is impacted by additional tariffs, customs processing, regulatory compliance checks, other NTBs, <etc.>, because the UK is not in the club anymore, and so now subjected to them like everybody else outside the club.

Meanwhile, the cost base of the notional <EU27> competitors remains unchanged, so the notional <EU27> competitors all gain a cost advantage over the notional UK employer. Through doing nothing, which is bonus for them :pac:

Before or after Brexit, the notional UK employer of the notional UK worker in the UK, still competes with notional <non-EU> employers of notional <non-EU> workers outside the EU of course. Only now, the UK employer does not enjoy the 'protective' relief from the EU tariffs, customs processing, regulatory compliance checks, other NTBs <etc.>, and so competes with them on a more level playing field (more level for the notional <non-EU> employers).

All things (overall procedural costs of goods entering the EU27) being equal, the UK employer must align his cost base on those of his non-EU competitors (FTA'd ones or not, depending on what relationship the UK gets with the EU).

That means either trimming profitability levels, and/or driving down labour costs (and other overheads), and/or increasing productivity (bearing in mind the UK starts from a red lantern position compared to many <EU27> employers, never mind the <non-EU> ones). Guess which?

I wonder if Foxconn are scouting in the UK yet? :pac:

Here's an outline of the non-tariff barriers (NTBs) faced by companies that export food to the EU:

What this amounts to, of course, is that all food establishments must fully comply with all relevant EU law, unless we can give assurances that our measures are equivalent to Community requirements.

On day one of Brexit, assurances of "equivalence" will not be hard to give but, if the UK is set upon any measure of deregulation, that will no longer apply. Thus, the UK will have to give the EU assurances that it will maintain current levels of equivalence and will not deviate from them. The actual standards are then subject to continuous monitoring, including site inspections, by Commission officials.

As it stands, though, the UK would not be able to apply for non-EU status until it has actually left the EU. As part of any transitional agreement, therefore, the UK will have to negotiate with the "colleagues" to ensure continuity of recognition.

That pre-supposes that the UK stays at the table and negotiates an orderly transition. If Mrs May decides to adopt her "walk away" strategy, then – officially – our establishments disappear. Food exports stop. There is no messing, no compromise. EU law is absolute on this. Unless establishments are approved in accordance with the rules, produce cannot be exported to the EU. For us to be recognised as a non-EU producer, we must eat humble pie and apply formally for recognition.

However, even if we get past these hurdles, we are not out of the woods. There is then the small matter of Council Directive 97/78/EC laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries.

We can enact all the Great Repeal Bills we like but there is no getting round this Directive: all exports from third countries must enter the EU via approved Border Inspection Posts, listed here. We can no longer send this type of traffic to Dover - there is no BIP there.

The closest BIP is Dunkirk, but that can only handle 5,000 consignments a year. That is approximately equivalent to about 300 metric tons a day. Yet, in one day (average), the UK exports 8,000 metric tons of meat (including poultrymeat) to the EU. Include dairy products and all the rest, and we're probably sending double that amount.

Unless, by dint of heroic negotiation, we can get these requirements waived, UK exports of foods of animal origin will effectively cease once Brexit takes effect. And if Mrs May "walks away", there is absolutely no chance of them continuing.

Bizarrely, the industry does not seem to have woken up to this threat – and the politicians seem fast asleep. But unless EU law is actually different from that posted on the EU website, and we're living in a parallel universe, UK food exporters are going to have a torrid time in a couple of years.

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86362

There are no Border Control Posts (the new name for Border Inspection Posts) on the ROI/NI border (Why would there be? Right now, they're both in the EU) and therefore the only way to import food from the UK, including NI, after Brexit will be to pass through the Border Control Posts at Dublin Port or Shannon Airport.

For UK food producers exporting to the continent, the nearest Border Control Posts are in Dunkirk and Le Havre.

However, they are limited in their capacity and couldn't even begin to handle the number of UK trucks that currently come into France each day.

Even if they were expanded (Who would pay for this? Why would the French or any other EU state pay for customs facilities that would facilitate competition from the UK?) it would take years for the physical infrastructure to be built and the UK's food inspection regimes and rules would have to be approved by the EU. Which is far from guaranteed as the EU has serious issues with the UK's ability to enforce the EU rules as a member () and also because the UK relies heavily on veterinary inspectors from other EU states to inspect food processing plants, which would require continuing freedom of movement if the UK wants to maintain the required staffing levels (https://www.verdict.co.uk/brexit-eu-food-safety-inspectors-stop-ensuring-quality-uk-imports/).

Here's an outline of the potential implications for the UK's food exports if it doesn't come to an agreement with the EU.

According to EU law, products of animal origin imported into the EU must be inspected at Border Inspection Posts (BIPs) and products of plant origin at Community Entry Points (CEPs). In practice, these are usually combined in single locations.

This much is known to regular readers of this blog, with the issue being aired as recently as yesterday. But what I've been unable to do so far is put some figures on the table, to assess how our exports to EU Member States will be affected when we have to be inspected under these regimes.

It is perhaps best if we stick to France for the moment, from which we can calculate that, of the £9 billion food & drink exports to the EU each year, probably about £4 billion is routed via that country.

And despite not having any accurate, published information on many lorry-loads that amounts to, I've found a way that we can make a very rough estimate. This is based on a value-to-weight ratio, taking it at about £1.50/kilo, against an average load of 10 tonnes. That gives us about 260,000 truck loads per annum entering the mainland via France.

A proportion of these loads must be inspected, and if we allow about 20 percent (which is the minimum rate permissible, which can go up to 50 percent – or 100 percent for live animals), that amounts to over 50,000 inspections per annum.

In France, these inspections are carried out by the Service d'inspection vrinaire et phytosanitaire aux frontiers (SIVEP), a national services established in 2009. Being French, they call their BIPs postes d'inspection frontaliers, of PIF for short. Plants and vegetables go through points d'entrcommunautaires (PEC).

Now, here's the rub. According to the latest statistics, the entire national service in 2015 inspected 41,137 consignments of products of animal origin, and 38,719 of products of plant origin – about 80,000 in total. The UK inspection requirement would absorb over 60 percent of the entire French throughput in one year.

But it gets worse. Of the two BIP/CEP installations on the northern French coast, with direct ferry links to the UK, Dunkirk can handle 5,000 consignments a year, while le Havre can handle 16-17,000.

In other words, the UK's post-Brexit requirement for inspection would be well in excess of twice the conveniently accessible capacity. And it is extremely unlikely that either post would have any significant spare capacity.

Effectively, to cope with imports of British foods, the French authorities would have build additional capacity equivalent to three times the size of their largest unit, at an approximate cost of £20 million – something along the lines of the Algeciras facility, the largest in Spain. Meanwhile, the inspection service, SIVEP, would have to commit to recruiting and training the 60 additional personnel it would need to run the operation.

As it stands, we are entirely in the hands of the French, who would no doubt gain politically from sitting on their hands and doing nothing. That would certainly be very popular with French farmers who, a couple of years ago were picketing the le Havre BIP, ironically described as "inspections".

And, for the moment, that seems to be precisely what they intend to do. When asked about the issue by a journalist from a UK national newspaper, the French department of agriculture gave a somewhat insouciant response that "as article 50 hasn't been invoked we have plenty of time to adapt the facilities as needs be". This, our journalist friend thought, was: "not entirely reassuring".

Furthermore, this is only French. As much produce again is exported throughout the EU, where a similar level of facilities will have to be found, or new-builds costing up to £20 million will have to be constructed and staffed. This will not only apply to the mainland. Exports to Ireland will also have to be inspected in the appropriate facilities.

However, with Mrs May still failing to offer clarity as to her intentions, it is difficult to see how the continental authorities could do anything other than wait. The exact nature of the investment will depend entirely on the deal negotiated with the EU, so there is no sense in making what would amount to a speculative investment.

Should negotiations fail, and the UK reverts to WTO rules, with no agreement on customs and other cross-border issues, this could catapult UK produce into the "high risk" capacity, decided by formal risk assessment procedures which would load the process because of the lack of any information exchange. The inspections would soar to 120,000 or more – amounting to 50 percent above the current throughput. Even theoretical capacity could be exceeded.

Should the authorities leave any response until agreement has been reached, that could leave a long gap before sufficient capacity was available. It is hard to see how a new-build installation could be completed inside two years and, with planning and commissioning, it could take as long as four years. And then there is the matter of funding. The French might be very reluctant to commit large sums simply to facilitate UK imports.

One possible alternative is for the UK Government to build a BIP facility this side of the Channel, securing European Commission permission for advance inspection. The facility would have to come under EU supervision, and operate to EU rules, possibly with some professional staff from EU Member States. Some of the existing capacity within the EU might be used.

Ongoing operational costs would be financed from inspection charges, levied at between £50 and £350 per inspection – plus any laboratory costs – adding millions to the cost of exporting.

But, for this to work, a decision on a new development would have to be made soon, and there is no indication that this issue has even been recognised for what it is. But there can be no doubt whatsoever that border inspection will become a permanent feature of our relation with the EU – unless Mrs May has a sudden change of heart and decides to keep us in the EEA.

Oddly enough, the one person who may be best placed to advise our Prime Minister on this is Michel Barnier who, as French Minister of Agriculture, had personal experience of BIPs. Above all, he will need to tell Mrs May, in no uncertain terms, that without inspection facilities, there will be no food exports to the EU.

Upon this will depend upwards of £9 billion in exports. This is a sizeable chunk of our trade, and a lifeline to our farmers and food processors. Failing to deal with it would precipitate a crisis in the countryside, its extent going far beyond the monetary value of the lost trade.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86393


TLDR? UK food and drink exports to the EU would stop without a post-Brexit agreement between the UK and the EU.

These barriers apply to all countries outside the EU, even ones the EU has free trade agreements (FTAs) with.

For example, despite the EU-Canada trade deal (due to begin in practice in September), CETA, Canadian meat producers have said they will not have 'commercially viable' access to the EU due to regulatory barriers.

Canada’s free trade accord with the European Union has failed to remove many of the barriers to shipping red meat to Europe.

“We do not have what we would call commercially viable access to the European market,” said Ron Davidson, head of international trade for the Canadian Meat Council. “There were a lot of barriers and we have been picking away at them,” said Davidson in an interview.

Under the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), Canada is allowed duty-free exports of 81,011 tonnes of pork, but three obstacles stand in the way.

The EU wants trichinella-free product and Canada is not officially recognized as free of the worms, which can be transferred from pork to people in raw or undercooked meat.

It is hoped a trichinella-free standard could be developed according to guidelines set out by the World Organization for Animal Health.

However, that would be expensive and there is no certainty the EU would accept it. The quota with the EU includes fresh and frozen meat.

The EU also requires its own health mark on boxes of meat over a tamper proof belt at the time of manufacture in the processing plant.

The boxes go into a cooler and the serial numbers on the health mark must be in sequence. That would create a lot of additional handling logistics for Canadian companies who ship to many other markets outside of Europe.

Canadian meat processors also express problems with equivalency inspection requirements with the EU.

“We supposedly do have equivalence in the meat inspection systems. If it is a real equivalence, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency stamp should be sufficient,” Davidson said.

On the beef side, Canada was granted duty-free exports of 64,950 tonnes of beef and veal.

The stumbling block is the use of antimicrobial treatments to remove pathogens like E. coli. Because Europe would not be buying entire carcasses, Canada would be left with items like trim used for grinding meat.

Those are exported to the United States, where there is a zero tolerance policy for E. coli.

That means the entire carcass is treated with antimicrobials in Canadian packing plants to avoid the risk of losing the U.S. market.

“If we turn off interventions, the risk of having an incident at the U.S. border goes up,” Davidson said.

Canada plans to submit applications to Europe for the addition of two antimicrobial products, which are like vinegar and citric acid. The EU has approved lactic acid for washing carcasses, halves and quarters.

Meanwhile, European meat suppliers have wide open access to Canadian markets.

“The day that CETA goes into effect, the 26.5 percent tariff comes off so the European Union is going to have a huge opening of the Canadian market for beef and veal,” he said. “The agreement is not balanced. We would just like to be able to take advantage of the quota we’ve got.”

Nevertheless, the EU holds promise, said British market analyst Richard Brown of the Gira Meat Club, an international consulting firm monitoring world meat trade.

“The EU market is a mature market where there is a considerable fortress policy to keep out cheap imports,” he said at the Alberta Beef Industry Conference Feb. 15-17 in Red Deer.

“There is absolutely scope for Canada to secure an interesting niche position in the European market,” he said.

“You need to listen very carefully to what it is they want and deliver it and market it in a good way.”

http://www.producer.com/2017/03/canadian-export-officials-miffed-over-ceta-import-regulations/

People who obsess over tariffs aren't really thinking. EU tariffs are generally low (except on agricultural products) and can be readily accounted for. For example, if a product has an EU tariff of 5%, it's straightforward to calculate the final selling price and the cost of absorbing that tariff (if the producer chooses to) through price reductions. However, it's almost impossible to figure out the final cost per unit of compliance with the non-tariff barriers, even if they can be complied with.

sondagefaux

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning,

Not that I'm looking for the most lengthy transition in the world but it is compatible.

Iceland is in the EEA but also has the freedom to sign free trade agreements. Iceland has just signed one with China.

That's something to note for those who claim that China wouldn't be interested in a free trade deal with the UK.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

China has an FTA with EFTA (the European Free Trade Association), of which Iceland is a member.

If the UK joined EFTA it would become party to EFTA's trade agreements.

Not that a trade agreement with China is necessarily a good idea. It's not a market economy under WTO rules (the former UK Chancellor, George Osborn, pushed for China to be recognised as a market economy under WTO rules, which would have forced the EU to reduce tariffs on Chinese imports), it dumps under-priced products, including steel, in the EU (efforts to impose anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese steel imported into the EU were being blocked by the UK, putting UK steel producers at risk until late last year: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/01/steel-crisis-uk-accused-blocking-eu-attempts-regulate-chinese-dumping https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/07/european-union-import-duties-chinese-steel-port-talbot-tata), and having a free trade agreement with China would wipe out many UK producers without the UK gaining much from the deal.

Of the four EFTA members, Liechtenstein is too small to have any significant goods exports (its total population is less than 40,000) and Iceland and Norway largely rely on exports of food (mainly fish and processed foods made with fish) at which they're really good and for which there's a large demand in China (due to many Chinese being wary about contamination of food produced in China), Switzerland produces high-quality consumer goods and pharmaceuticals, again there's high demand for these in China, including pharmaceuticals, as many Chinese are aware that Chinese products are not made to the same high standards as goods produced in western Europe and there have been many scandals (and deaths) caused by fake medications etc.

The UK produces little or nothing that would benefit from a free trade deal with China (apart from Scotch whisky) but has many sectors that would be very vulnerable if it was easier and cheaper to bring Chinese-made goods into the UK, as the crisis in UK steel making last year shows.

The existing EFTA states have very different economies. What suits them won't necessarily suit the UK and it should avoid becoming party to EFTA's trade agreement with China unless China radically changes.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

Iceland is in the EEA but also has the freedom to sign free trade agreements. Iceland has just signed one with China.

And if the UK wants to join the EEA and fully comply with all the obligations including contributions the the EU structural funds, adherence to ECJ ruling etc... that would be fine. But that is not what they want is it? But that does mean that they will not be able to go off and do all the things they are claiming they will do.

sondagefaux

My posts above have concentrated on food exports from the UK to the EU.

However, food imports into the UK from outside the EU would also be affected:

The UK faces having to train a squad of globetrotting animal inspectors once it takes over one of the lesser-known parts of the EU bureaucracy after Brexit.

From chicken coops in Chile to shrimp farms in Sri Lanka, EU inspectors and vets inspect the health and hygiene of livestock overseas, part of the bloc’s strict controls on produce imported for human consumption. Some 170 European Commission staff carry out up to 240 inspections each year in as many as 130 different countries.

The UK’s departure from the EU means that unless it reaches a deal to continue to work with Brussels it is likely to have to create its own unit of travelling inspectors to ensure the quality of food imports. Senior vets have warned that without liberal immigration rules, Britain may struggle to find enough qualified staff.

“We need to plan for the possibility of that scenario where we’re not able to share . . . the EU mechanisms. We would [be required] to do our own inspections. We know it’s work for us to do,” Professor Nigel Gibbens, the UK’s chief veterinary officer, told a British parliamentary committee in March.

We need to plan for the possibility of that scenario where we’re not able to share . . . the EU mechanisms

The issue is one of several instances where the UK is set to take on bureaucratic work previously carried out at EU level.

Food inspection is a substantial task for the European Commission. Data from 2015 show that its vets and inspectors spent a combined 4,720 days on overseas visits. Another 150 staff provide back-office support.

“The work of the service is vital in relation to international trade in food, animals and plants as the audit results are a major factor in determining which non-EU countries can export to the EU,” said Paola Colombo, director for health and food audits at the commission.

The commission declined to say what the annual budget for its inspectors was, but overall spending on food safety reached more than €250m in 2015.

The extra workload means the UK will require scores of veterinary professionals working and travelling from 2019.

The British Veterinary Association said the UK would need a liberal immigration policy to ensure that there were enough government vets to match the demand. 

“The government will have to ensure that we have enough veterinary surgeons to undertake these essential roles,” said Gudrun Ravetz, president of the BVA. “Our current workforce of official veterinarians is heavily reliant on non-British EU vets and that is why the BVA has been lobbying hard for the government to guarantee the ongoing working rights of our EU colleagues in the UK.” 

Travelling vets check animals for disease and harmful levels of drugs, contaminants or pesticides, and ensure they are kept according to EU hygiene rules. Slaughterhouses are also monitored, and laboratory tests are carried out at the UK border. 

The EU often suggests improvements to conditions or working practices and in extreme cases can impose sanctions such as a trade ban if a country repeatedly flouts the rules.

Upcoming EU inspections this year include trips to check on poultry in Morocco, fish in Canada and Cura, and cows and pigs in Malaysia, Singapore and South Africa.

The UK Food Standards Agency declined to comment on whether it would be taking on the extra work from 2019, but told the Financial Times: “Food safety audit and assurance is being considered as part of wider work looking at potential audit and assurance arrangements after the UK leaves the EU.”

https://www.ft.com/content/c4999e54-3702-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e?mhq5j=e1

The threat of suspending food imports into the EU is not an idle one.

The EU suspended imports of meat from certain Brazilian meat plants and would have imposed a ban on Brazilian meat imports if the Brazilians hadn't voluntarily suspended meat shipments from the affected meat plants.

BRASILIA (Reuters) - The European Union has asked Brazil to voluntarily suspend all shipments of meat to its member countries to avoid imposing a ban that would take time to lift, but the Brazilian government has not agreed, EU diplomats in Brasilia told Reuters on Thursday.

Brazilian meat exports have in any case ground almost to a halt following a police investigation into corruption involving food-sanitation inspectors and accusations that rotten products were sold.

A spokeswoman said Brazilian Agriculture Minister Blairo Maggi was not aware of the request.

The Brazilian government suspended meat shipments from the 21 meat-packing plants under investigation by the federal police, while insisting the quality of Brazilian meat was not in doubt.

But European farm groups called on the EU Commission on Thursday to take stronger action against Brazilian meat imports because of the scandal. EU experts meet in Brussels on Friday to decide on possible further measures.

The EU had already suspended imports from four Brazilian meat-processing facilities earlier this week.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-corruption-meat-eu-idUKKBN16U2Z5

One of the biggest markets for Brazilian meat, the European Union has mulled over banning imports from Brazil. In a harsh letter to Brazilian Minister of Agriculture Blairo Maggi, the EU’s Health and Food Security Commissary, Vytenis Andriukaitis, complained that the country has done nothing to regain the trust of international partners.

In March, a Federal Police operation unveiled a bribing scheme within the Ministry of Agriculture. Auditors got bribes in exchange for fraudulent sanitary permits.

The document is far harsher than the usual tone of diplomatic letters. It questions the “credibility of official guarantees and the confidence the EU can have in these guarantees.”

Between May 2 and 12, the EU conducted an audit of Brazilian slaughterhouses and meatpacking companies. In fact, they found “a range of critical deficiencies in most sectors, a number of which are of a serious nature.”

The EU has been fed up with Brazil’s lack of effort to address the problems with sanitary inspections in the country. Following the Federal Police operation in March, the government simply said that the problem was not widespread and affected only 21 establishments.

However, Brazilian authorities “considered that no further investigations were necessary in other establishments.”

Furthermore, Brazil hasn’t planned any measures to strengthen the control systems in place.

As a matter of fact, the European Commission says that the constant corruption scandals undermine Brazil’s credibility. Blairo Maggi, the Minister of Agriculture, is one of the many politicians under federal investigation.

Ultimatum

Brazil has repeatedly ignored recommendations from the EU. The bloc complained that some of the non-conformities have not been corrected over the past six years.

This time, though, the bloc has made strict demands to Brazil. It wants the country to implement pre-export microbiological checks for all products shipped to the EU.

As a symbolic gesture, the EU has suspended Brazilian horse meat imports. While the product is not relevant for the Brazil-EU trade, a wider ban could follow. After all, the audit has also found irregularities with poultry and beef.

The European Union is the second-largest importer of poultry from Brazil ($1 billion in 2016) and third-largest importer of Brazilian meat ($685 million).

http://plus55.com/brazil-meat-scandal/2017/06/brazilian-meat-eu-ban-imports

Of course the UK could ditch the food safety standards that it has now due to its EU membership (although the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill proposes to transfer the relevant EU laws into UK law, suggesting that it won't) and allow food imports from anywhere without any quality checks.

That would certainly lead to cheaper food (not so good for UK farmers perhaps...) but risks widespread food contamination.

It would also mean that the EU would not permit imports of UK-produced food to the EU if the UK decided not to adopt EU food safety requirements.

Given the tariff and regulatory barriers to food produced outside the EU, and given that about one-third of the milk produced in Northern Ireland is sent to the republic, the implications for dairy farmers in the north are obvious.

The cross-border sale of milk from Northern Ireland to the Republic could be at risk following Brexit, it has been claimed.

Around a third of all milk produced here makes its way to processors over the border.

But according to industry leaders, if the UK leaves the EU without trade agreements in place, the tariffs that would be imposed would render the cross-border milk trade no longer viable, bringing one of the biggest shake-ups to the industry in decades.

Around a quarter of all food and drink produced in the UK is sold within EU countries, including £700m worth of goods that go to the Republic.

But experts have warned it is becoming increasingly likely there will be no trade agreements on agricultural produce when the UK leaves EU.

Declan Billington, chairman of the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association (Nifda), said he had no reason to believe the EU would strike a deal for the sector beforehand.

He indicated it was likely tariffs would lead to a 47% price hike on butter and a 56% rise on beef import and export costs.

Mr Billington also claimed there would be no room for picking and choosing which sectors would enjoy preferential terms.

"We can't cherrypick and say we will do a trade deal on automotive but not on aircraft, for example," he explained.

The Nifda chairman added that EU member states would be reluctant to offer a good tariff on agricultural produce as the UK would no longer be paying into the common agricultural policy.

However, he insisted there remained opportunities for food and drink in the home market, but only if the transition was carried out smoothly.

"My personal belief is that Europe will acknowledge the special circumstances of the border here," Mr Billington said.

"It could be possible to implement tariff-free quotas, so that up to a certain volume of goods can be traded without tariffs.

"The quotas would be very small to Europe, but large on a Northern Ireland scale.

"Just over 40% of what we consume in the UK is imported, and we have the opportunity to replace most of that with food produced here.

"If no trade deal is struck, it's unlikely we'll want to continue importing European food. We're not a wine region, but there's massive opportunities for food producers here to fill that gap."

Milk processor LacPatrick, formed following the merger between Ballyrashane and Town of Monaghan, has around 1,100 suppliers, mostly based here.

Chief executive Gabriel D'Arcy said his firm, which has a new £30m processing plant in Artigarvan, Co Tyrone, that can process up to 3.5m litres a day, was preparing for a hard Brexit.

He added: "Given the tone and content of the key protagonists on the British and European sides, it looks like this will be a hard Brexit, with much disruption likely. All producers need to understand where their processors' assets and markets are, as some processors are going to be more disrupted than others.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/eu-trade-tariffs-could-sour-sale-of-milk-between-northern-ireland-and-the-republic-35378735.html

Unfortunately, not one of the food industry spokespersons quoted in that article mentioned the non-tariff barriers, including the necessity to comply with EU food safety standards, instead they talked about tariffs.

If people who should be experts in their own sectors are stuck talking about tariffs instead of talking about the far more serious non-tariff barriers, the chances of the UK government negotiating a good deal (or indeed any deal) with the EU are greatly diminished.