Brexit discussion thread II

Billy86

Fratton Fred wrote: »

how do you know what I believe?

I've been kind of in and out on the thread, could you bring me and others like me up to speed on what you do believe on that matter?

LeinsterDub

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What you are doing is pretending that you know why the British public voted the way it did, and then pretending that that means British politicians have no choice but to wreck the UK.

I'm doing no such thing. I said a certain section of the British public voted to take back control. This is undeniable. I didn't say British should or would listen to them. I just pointed out the irony of voting to take back control only to lose even more control

Panrich

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps Solo believes like Fred, that the threat to damage trade with the EU is intended only to make the EU agree to some special deal. If so, they are about to find that the EU is too big to threaten that way.

But I think they really intend to damage trade, and the position papers are intended only to lay the blame with the EU afterwards.

Reaction to the EU is bordering on hysterical at times and the amount of vitriol towards it is worrying given that the 'bad times' are still to come. The softening of Labours stance has been met with a real backlash from hard-line brexiters.

Tory support is gravitating towards Rees-Mogg in the wake of reports that the ECJ might still have a role to play and a social media campaign seems to be under way. There are invisible hands pulling the levers still.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/28/brexiters-ecj-backlash-rally-support-jacob-rees-mogg

Peregrinus

Actually, this makes sense and is a useful clarification, even though it's not entirely correct. In the UK, the rear brake lever is on the left hand side, and the front brake lever on the right. In France , it's the other way around.

It's not true to say that the French standard is a European norm; Italy follows the UK practice, for example. On this issue there's no European standard (and SFAIK no national standards; manufacturers and cycle engineers are free to do whatever they like in this regard). It's just the market practice in different countries to do things different ways. Nevertheless the common French configuration is commonly referred to in the UK as "European style".

With the advent of the single market, the growth of parallel imports, etc, it's increasingly common to find bikes with the brakes configured in what is (for the country of sale) an unfamiliar way. This particular website is clarifying what their practice is.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

how do you know what I believe?

I suppose because you offer no criticism of some of the pro-brexit posts here and even thank them.

PeadarCo

Jim2007 wrote:

Actually there may well be a difference - my Swiss bike has the brake leavers reversed...

That is a different but its as much as an informal custom as anything else which sides of the handlebars the front and rear brake controls are on. The front brake has more braking power than the rear(something to do with physics of it I think). Its not a big deal to switch them around. Just a bit of an extra expense if you want to change them around to suit your own personal preferences. Its nothing to do with brexit.

Zubeneschamali

Fratton Fred wrote: »

how do you know what I believe?

I am guessing what you believe based on your posts.

You have suggested many times that the UK statements of what they want are opening statements in negotiations, and not to be taken at face value.

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm doing no such thing. I said a certain section of the British public voted to take back control. This is undeniable.

What makes you believe that is undeniable?

Brexit will give them less control, not more, so they should have chosen Remain if this was their big issue.

LeinsterDub

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What makes you believe that is undeniable?

Brexit will give them less control, not more, so they should have chosen Remain if this was their big issue.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2016/07/05/3-reasons-brits-voted-for-brexit/#7005b8c41f9d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_vote_in_favour_of_Brexit#Sovereignty
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-30/poll-shows-brexit-vote-was-about-british-sovereignty-not-anti-immigration

How do you figure brexit (read hard brexit) gives them less control/sovereignty

Sam Russell

Jim2007 wrote: »

Actually there may well be a difference - my Swiss bike has the brake leavers reversed...

I was amused by the tone of the comments, including the double exclamation marks. If it was just the side the front brake was on, they could have said that. I think that the mention of British standards, rather than customs elevates it to the Brexit level. Just saying .....

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

How do you figure brexit (read hard brexit) gives them less control/sovereignty

Today, Britain has a say in the rules of the EU and Single Market. The EU will remain their largest market after Brexit, but they will just have to comply with EU rules for trade without any input.

Like Norway and Switzerland today.

They are copying EU law into UK law, and in theory could change it later, but in practice, every change to UK law which diverges from EU law will be an extra hindrance to trade in future. Likewise, if EU law changes in future and the UK does not copy the change, that will likewise be a hindrance. So they have a theoretical sovereignty, but in practice will be in lock step with laws they cannot influence unless they want to sacrifice trade.

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, this makes sense and is a useful clarification, even though it's not entirely correct. In the UK, the rear brake lever is on the left hand side, and the front brake lever on the right. In France , it's the other way around.

It's not true to say that the French standard is a European norm; Italy follows the UK practice, for example. On this issue there's no European standard (and SFAIK no national standards; manufacturers and cycle engineers are free to do whatever they like in this regard). It's just the market practice in different countries to do things different ways. Nevertheless the common French configuration is commonly referred to in the UK as "European style".

With the advent of the single market, the growth of parallel imports, etc, it's increasingly common to find bikes with the brakes configured in what is (for the country of sale) an unfamiliar way. This particular website is clarifying what their practice is.

I didn't know about Italy, but in Spain it is certainly the same as France.

LeinsterDub

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Today, Britain has a say in the rules of the EU and Single Market. The EU will remain their largest market after Brexit, but they will just have to comply with EU rules for trade without any input.

Like Norway and Switzerland today.

They are copying EU law into UK law, and in theory could change it later, but in practice, every change to UK law which diverges from EU law will be an extra hindrance to trade in future. Likewise, if EU law changes in future and the UK does not copy the change, that will likewise be a hindrance. So they have a theoretical sovereignty, but in practice will be in lock step with laws they cannot influence unless they want to sacrifice trade.

Which is what I've been saying. Only in a nuclear hard Brexit would they've no obligation to follow any EU laws.

PeadarCo

Sam Russell wrote:

I was amused by the tone of the comments, including the double exclamation marks. If it was just the side the front brake was on, they could have said that. I think that the mention of British standards, rather than customs elevates it to the Brexit level. Just saying .....

To fair a knowledgeable cyclist in this part of the world would understand what they are saying. Its alot less wordy as well. Brakes are an important bike part and are probably just protecting themselves legally.

Even though it does show it can be very easy to overreact to throwaway comments in negotiation talks/small changes in business practices. However saying that most of the changes from a business point of view can't be considered small. Politically though for all the talk the UK have barely moved on deciding what they want.

Sam Russell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Today, Britain has a say in the rules of the EU and Single Market. The EU will remain their largest market after Brexit, but they will just have to comply with EU rules for trade without any input.

Like Norway and Switzerland today.

They are copying EU law into UK law, and in theory could change it later, but in practice, every change to UK law which diverges from EU law will be an extra hindrance to trade in future. Likewise, if EU law changes in future and the UK does not copy the change, that will likewise be a hindrance. So they have a theoretical sovereignty, but in practice will be in lock step with laws they cannot influence unless they want to sacrifice trade.

Not only that, they will have to duplicate all standards agencies or submit products to the EU standards authority. Surely a UK standards authority will require a similar number of employees as an EU authority, so that cost will be born solely by the UK whereas the EU one will be shared by 28 27 counties. Carry that over to the hundred or so EU agencies, and the cost saving from leaving the EU will begin to disappear.

They will have the sovereign decision to not pay their farmers their CAP money, and to not pay their impoverished regions their EU regional funds, but of course that gives more power to Westminster. That is one way to take back control.

Billy86

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm doing no such thing. I said a certain section of the British public voted to take back control. This is undeniable. I didn't say British should or would listen to them. I just pointed out the irony of voting to take back control only to lose even more control

Well it depends what way you're looking at it. If you view global trade markets as a tumultuous sea, the UK were part of the great ship EU. This ship had huge control over the seas and other vessels, and in getting to where it was heading at any given time. But the UK were unhappy that they didn't get full say over where the vessel to head to.

Now they're in a rubber dinghy, pouring out water by the bucket over and over again to keep afloat as much as possible while any leaks would threaten to almost drown them. They can't control the ships around them, they can't control the tide or current, they don't have a clear sight nor even much of any idea where they are headed to. But they have control, all the control in the world to say "lets head right, as far right as the horizon will take us!" - even if their compass is broken and they're bound to get flung back left, forwards, backwards, or any diagonal mix of those at any moment.

The EU meanwhile carries onwards.

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Which is what I've been saying. Only in a nuclear hard Brexit would they've no obligation to follow any EU laws.

Except that if they want to continue to sell their goods to the EU, they will have to comply with EU standards.

Jim2007

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Today, Britain has a say in the rules of the EU and Single Market. The EU will remain their largest market after Brexit, but they will just have to comply with EU rules for trade without any input.

Like Norway and Switzerland today.

But that is not the case.

- We both have to accept ECJ rules on market issues, Switzerland directly and Norway via the rulings of the EFTA court on EEA matters.

- We both have to contribute to EU structural funds etc...

- We both have to accept rulings of EU standard setting bodies etc.

- We both have to accept FMOP

It is not just about simple trading rules.

LeinsterDub

Billy86 wrote: »

Well it depends what way you're looking at it. If you view global trade markets as a tumultuous sea, the UK were part of the great ship EU. This ship had huge control over the seas and other vessels, and in getting to where it was heading at any given time. But the UK were unhappy that they didn't get full say over where the vessel to head to.

Now they're in a rubber dinghy, pouring out water by the bucket over and over again to keep afloat as much as possible while any leaks would threaten to almost drown them. They can't control the ships around them, they can't control the tide or current, they don't have a clear sight nor even much of any idea where they are headed to. But they have control, all the control in the world to say "lets head right, as far right as the horizon will take us!" - even if their compass is broken and they're bound to get flung back left, forwards, backwards, or any diagonal mix of those at any moment.

The EU meanwhile carries onwards.

And to carry on the analogy leaving the EU and staying in the common market is like deciding you no longer want to be co-captain of the Good Ship EU but would rather be in a rubber dinghy tethered to in the wake of the Good Ship EU, follow wherever she goes but no longer steering the boat

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

Except that if they want to continue to sell their goods to the EU, they will have to comply with EU standards.

Which was my original point.

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Which was my original point.

In #1964 you said they would not have to follow EU laws in a nuclear hard Brexit.

If they want to trade, they would.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

In #1964 you said they would not have to follow EU laws in a nuclear hard Brexit.

If they want to trade, they would.

As I said 'nuclear brexit' as in no relationship with the EU trade or otherwise

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

As I said 'nuclear brexit' as in no relationship with the EU trade or otherwise

You think that is a possibility?

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Glad we have cleared that up. UK is not North Korea, and if they want to have any kind of ongoing trade with the EU, UK companies will have to comply with at least some EU regulations.

Now, maybe we can move on and discuss other aspects of Brexit please.

joeysoap

Anyone ever google 'Brexit news? I do it once a day for a laugh, and it is a hoot.

Daily express, Sunday express and Telegraph usually have 'storys' of Uk splitting EU unity, how much business Germany is going to lose onc Uk departs and how Macron and Merkel split on Brexit etc etc

Guardian is usually the opposite, and the independent usually in the middle.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/28/britain-lashes-ill-judged-barnier-scolds-uk-brexit-ambiguity/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/27/exclusive-eu-could-open-brexit-climbdown-trade-talks-amid-revolt/



The one thing that is clear though is that the UK is one very divided place right now, and no matter who comes out on top they will remain divided for a long time.

* Ireland is seldom mentioned by the telegraph or express.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

They will have the sovereign decision to not pay their farmers their CAP money, and to not pay their impoverished regions their EU regional funds, but of course that gives more power to Westminster. That is one way to take back control.

Well they've already said they'd pay the farmers. Well those that meet with some yet to be decided environmental standard, so nothing to worry about there is there ?

Water John

Ha! Think they'll be looking at NZ as their future model, no supports. Food cheap as possible.

Peter Flynt

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Mod note:

Glad we have cleared that up. UK is not North Korea, and if they want to have any kind of ongoing trade with the EU, UK companies will have to comply with at least some EU regulations.

Now, maybe we can move on and discuss other aspects of Brexit please.

Not SOME EU regulations. . . ALL of them.

Junkyard Tom

Water John wrote: »

Ha! Think they'll be looking at NZ as their future model, no supports. Food cheap as possible.

The farmers in the north will be delighted.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Not SOME EU regulations. . . ALL of them.

They're going to have to clone EU regulations for all production/exports that are destined for the EU, isn't it?

Peregrinus

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

They're going to have to clone EU regulations for all production/exports that are destined for the EU, isn't it?

No, not necessarily. If manufacturers want to sell into the EU market, they'll have to comply with EU market requirements. There'll be no need for cloned UK regulations telling them they must do this; simple self-interest will lead them to do it. Just as, if they are manufacturing for the US market, they currently manufacture to the standards legally required of goods in that market.

The thing is, under this arrangement, UK goods will still be disadvantaged in the EU market. Goods produced with in the EU are known to have been produced under a regulatory regime which imposes EU market standards; goods produced in the UK are not. So when UK goods are imported into the EU, they are liable to inspection, certification, etc, (as well as customs clearance), all of which adds to the importer's costs. So, all other things being equal, the (say) French wholesaler will prefer to buy product from Portugal or Bulgaria or Finland than from the UK.

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

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

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

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

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

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

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

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

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

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

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

Peregrinus

The UK would, at least potentially.

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

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

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

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

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

That's what people said about the Brexit vote.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK would, at least potentially.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enzokk

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

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

UK hopes dashed for swift Japan trade talks

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

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

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

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

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

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

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

It doesn't hurt to ask.

Water John

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

Peregrinus

Water John wrote: »

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

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

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

blanch152

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK would, at least potentially.

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

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

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

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

Otherwise the UK will lose foreign investment.

Sam Russell

Let us look at a particular example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I know how the Brexit crowd would react.

Nody

Sam Russell wrote: »

Let us look at a particular example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I know how the Brexit crowd would react.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Let us look at a particular example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I know how the Brexit crowd would react.

joeysoap wrote: »

Deleted post

I did not realise that this is a live issue.

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

They really need to read the small print.

murphaph

Sam Russell wrote: »

They really need to read the small print.

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

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

ancapailldorcha

Nonsense posts deleted. Take the linkdumping elsewhere please.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

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

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

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

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

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

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

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

Blowfish

Nody wrote: »

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

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