Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

That's a strange comparison,how is following the law/rules of your country(which ever country that might be)the same as following law/rules from Brussels?

You do know that each member state has an input into the laws. In many cases the UK had senior positions within the committees that debated and decided.

Every PM , since joining the EU, has gone along with the laws, either accepted them as right, or accepting that they were not worth fighting over. Either way it was a conscious decision by the elected representatives of the UK democracy.

And in the cases where they dindn't such as Euro, the UK operated its veto.

The EU is far more democratic that the UK, which gives no voice to either Wales of Scottish MP's and only to NI ones when the Tories needed their vote, and have now been tossed aside.

Irish Praetorian

RobMc59 wrote: »

That's a strange comparison,how is following the law/rules of your country(which ever country that might be)the same as following law/rules from Brussels?

How is it that much different? In both cases it involves the individual throwing in their lot with a larger group and trying to make the best of it. The only difference I can see is that European states have tended to be nations with a real of imagined history, but as our world becomes increasingly global, those histories now stand more as shared inheritances rather than points of contention. And the other part of that increasing globalization is that old ways of doing things become more and more insufficient.

RobMc59

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, if you don't want a lowering of standards across the board, let's hope that there really is a level playing field next January. Otherwise, a WTO UK won't have any choice but to dump regulations left, right and centre if they want any semblance of an economy.

I want a mutually agreed deal which allows the UK to exist alongside the EU,trading with them and others respecting each others rules and standards.
This isn't looking very likely.and I agree will be painful for the UK but will ultimately heal with time.Perhaps the UK will forge closer ties with other Commonwealth and Pacific nations.

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

You asked me whether the EU is worried and I answered.
My views aren't extreme and I'd prefer a deal where the UK voluntary aligns with the EU but not one that shackles the UK and demands compliance.What is the EU so afraid of?

I don't know. You keep making these grand statements with nothing to back them up or even any specifics.

declanflynn

RobMc59 wrote: »

It`s a constant mystery to me why some people feign indifference to something when they are in fact obsessed with it?:rolleyes:

jeez I'm not obsessed with brexit, the UK were never happy in the EU, I always thought they should be told to leave, but Brexit means they voted to leave, my only fear is that they wont go or that they will go in name only.
I want the uk out of the EU today if possible with no trade deal.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I want a mutually agreed deal which allows the UK to exist alongside the EU,trading with them and others respecting each others rules and standards.
This isn't looking very likely.and I agree will be painful for the UK but will ultimately heal with time.Perhaps the UK will forge closer ties with other Commonwealth and Pacific nations.

Therein lies the problem. Both Gove and Frost have stated on a number of occasions that they see Brexit and simply the beginning of the end of the EU. For them it is not about coexisting, it is about the UK exerting dominance over a fractures Europe.

RobMc59

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know. You keep making these grand statements with nothing to back them up or even any specifics.

I ask a question and you reply with a flippant comment.Double standards me thinks.

Leroy42

declanflynn wrote: »

jeez I'm not obsessed with brexit, the UK were never happy in the EU, I always thought they should be told to leave, but Brexit means they voted to leave, my only fear is that they wont go or that they will go in name only.
I want the uk out of the EU today if possible with no trade deal.

And who pays the cost, which I assume you are aware of and have factored into to your plan?

And what are the benefits that mean these costs are worth paying?

declanflynn

Leroy42 wrote: »

And who pays the cost, which I assume you are aware of and have factored into to your plan?

And what are the benefits that mean these costs are worth paying?

The benifits of not having to listen to UK tools on threads like this will far outweigh any financial cost

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

I ask a question and you reply with a flippant comment.Double standards me thinks.

What are you expecting? There's no indication that the EU is afraid of anything here and you certainly haven't given any reason to think so.

davedanon

RobMc59 wrote: »

I agree,I also voted to remain but would rather go it alone now if a mutually agreeable deal can't be worked out. Being subservient to Brussels which many here seem very comfortable with is comparable with Orwell's '1984'.

You obviously haven't read the book, because it isn't remotely comparable.

davedanon

RobMc59 wrote: »

and I agree will be painful for the UK but will ultimately heal with time.Perhaps the UK will forge closer ties with other Commonwealth and Pacific nations.

'Ultimately heal with time'. Well, why didn't you say? That makes the whole sacrifice worthwhile. And I have absolutely no doubt that Britain will forge closer ties with those other Commonwealth countries thousands of miles away and with no lingering resentment of the historical Commonwealth top-dog and who don't want anything from Britain except loads of mutually-beneficient trade, especially India which really doesn't want a major deal on immigration in return for increased trade. And let's not mention Donnie. Nice, reasonable, affable Donnie.

First Up

I wonder what planet some posters here are living on. All markets operate on the basis of common standards. If you don't agree to conform to those standards you exclude yourself from the market. It really isn't any more complicated than that. It applies to your local corner shop too.

The EU Single Market operates between countries that have agreed to use the same standards. The UK was within that market on those terms as an EU member.

Outside the EU, the UK is free to set it's own standards but this means they are leaving the Single Market. The greater the deviation from EU standards, the higher the price they will pay to get back in.

There is no intrusion on UK sovereignty. The UK is free to set any laws or standards it likes within it's own jurisdiction but if it wants to trade outside that jurisdiction, it needs to also heed the laws and standards of others.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

That's a strange comparison,how is following the law/rules of your country(which ever country that might be)the same as following law/rules from Brussels?

If you're in Hull, why are laws/rules from Brussels different to laws/rules from Westminster?

Both are made with some involvement of representatives of the people of Hull, but both are also made with rather more involvement of representatives of people not from Hull. You seem to be of the view that for the Hullites to follow laws from Westminster is fundamentally different from following laws from Brussels, but as far as I can see it is fundamentally the same, and you're not explaining why you think its different.

The question for the popele of Hull is, who do they want to collaborate with in framing their laws, and who do they not want to collaborate with?

And there's an obvious trade-off here; the fewer people you choose to collaborate with, the less benefit you derive from having common laws/rules/standards with other people and other communties. Factor this into the decision you make, but for the love of God don't whinge about it afterwards.

RobMc59 wrote: »

I want a mutually agreed deal which allows the UK to exist alongside the EU,trading with them and others respecting each others rules and standards.

The UK had exactly that deal, but has decided to leave it. The Single Market was designed precisely as a mechanism to enable mutual recognition of standards. The more the UK tries to reinvent the wheel in its FTA negotations, the more the resulting FTA will look like participation in the Single Market.

Which, to be clear, would be an entirely rational and sensible course for the UK to take, and is a course which other independent sovereign states have chosen to take. That's why the EEA exists.

RobMc59 wrote: »

This isn't looking very likely.and I agree will be painful for the UK but will ultimately heal with time.Perhaps the UK will forge closer ties with other Commonwealth and Pacific nations.

It's not looking likely because the UK government is dead set against it. Which, you know, is a decision the UK is entitled to make.

But what the UK can't do - if it wishes to retain any self-respect - is to reject the course which would lead to the objectives you have stated, and then complain that they have been denied the attainment of those objectives. They have denied themselves the attainment of those obectives, and it would not be good to be in denial about that. "Taking back control" will not end well for the UK if it does not involve taking responsibility for the outcome of the decisions you exercise control over.

As for closer ties with Commonwealth and Pacific countries, possibly. But there is no realistic prospect that those closer ties can offset the damage to the UK that will result from its decision not to pursue the objectives you think it should pursue. And if the UK goes about building those closer ties with the same degree of competence and insight it has displayed in the execution of the Brexit project, there is no great prospect that it will acheive very much at all.

joeguevara

I’m not sure of the reasoning of the Hull v Brussels question. But a few things are relevant.

Firstly safety standards. Things like bleach, colour, non invasive surgical procedures, types of scissors required, sterilisation, etc usually have European safety standards. Whether products are manufactured in EU or China etc they must adhere to them. These standards usually are enacted in Strasbourg not Brussels but that’s beside the point.

uK now will be able to have own standards but how does that help. Will they be less safe or the same. As most beauty products are EU companies and manufacturered worldwide they hardly will decide to do less for U.K. when they can sell in same.

Employment law, outside EU I’mmigration same. From EU depends.

Electricity standards won’t change.

Basically not much will change except cost of imported products will be higher.

Peregrinus

joeguevara wrote: »

I’m not sure of the reasoning of the Hull v Brussels question. But a few things are relevant.

Firstly safety standards. Things like bleach, colour, non invasive surgical procedures, types of scissors required, sterilisation, etc usually have European safety standards. Whether products are manufactured in EU or China etc they must adhere to them. These standards usually are enacted in Strasbourg not Brussels but that’s beside the point.

uK now will be able to have own standards but how does that help. Will they be less safe or the same. As most beauty products are EU companies and manufacturered worldwide they hardly will decide to do less for U.K. when they can sell in same.

Employment law, outside EU I’mmigration same. From EU depends.

Electricity standards won’t change.

Basically not much will change except cost of imported products will be higher.

No. There's be a barrier to British exports as well.

A product made in, e.g., Bulgaria can be marketed and sold throughout the European Economic Area, because Bulgarian law enforces EU product standards, and Bulgaria has treaty commitments to do this.

A manufacturer of the same product in the UK has, in economic reality, no choice but to manufacture to EU standards. But because he is not legally obliged to manufactor to EU standards, and because the UK has not entered into treaty commitments to maintain or enforce EU standards in UK law, he does not benefit from any presumption that his goods are compliant with EU standards. To market his goods in the EEA, he is going to have to get his manufacturing standards inspected and certified by the EU authorities - a cost he has to bear that his Bulgarian rival does not have to bear. And when each consignment of his goods is imported into the EEA that certification has to be produced and inspected, leading to a cost/delay not faced by goods distributed from Bulgaria.

joeguevara

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. There's be a barrier to British exports as well.

A product made in, e.g., Bulgaria can be marketed and sold throughout the European Economic Area, because Bulgarian law enforces EU product standards, and Bulgaria has treaty commitments to do this.

A manufacturer of the same product in the UK has, in economic reality, no choice but to manufacture to EU standards. But because he is not legally obliged to manufactor to EU standards, and because the UK has not entered into treaty commitments to maintain or enforce EU standards in UK law, he does not benefit from any presumption that his goods are compliant with EU standards. To market his goods in the EEA, he is going to have to get his manufacturing standards inspected and certified by the EU authorities - a cost he has to bear that his Bulgarian rival does not have to bear. And when each consignment of his goods is imported into the EEA that certification has to be produced and inspected, leading to a cost/delay not faced by goods distributed from Bulgaria.

But a manufacturer In a completely self autonomous country like U.K. will be, does noT need to manufacture to Eu standards if selling to a U.K. customer in hull. That is what i was saying, but the fact that there are very few beauty manufacturers in U.K. means a customer in hull has little change. That was the scenario requested. I agree with everything you have said

Peregrinus

joeguevara wrote: »

But a manufacturer In a completely self autonomous country like U.K. will be, does noT need to manufacture to Eu standards if selling to a U.K. customer in hull. That is what i was saying, but the fact that there are very few beauty manufacturers in U.K. means a customer in hull has little change. That was the scenario requested. I agree with everything you have said

Yes. For UK manufacturers who only sell into the UK domestic market, the new barrier is not a barrier to their current operation; just a barrier to any expansion into the neighhbouring and vastly larger market.

joeguevara

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. For UK manufacturers who only sell into the UK domestic market, the new barrier is not a barrier to their current operation; just a barrier to any expansion into the neighhbouring and vastly larger market.

The only barrier being consumer confidence if safety standards are less than eu counterparts. If same, and economies of scale mean a colour is more expensive than previously may be an issue. Using brands not known worldwide may excuse the pun raise eyebrows

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. For UK manufacturers who only sell into the UK domestic market, the new barrier is not a barrier to their current operation; just a barrier to any expansion into the neighhbouring and vastly larger market.

I don't know why people are making so much out of this on this thread.

Obviously, when the UK is selling stuff to any country the standards of the other country need to be considered. For example, when the UK sells to the USA it will follow the standards of the USA. The same is true for the EU. This point is relatively uncontroversial.

Brexit is about ensuring that laws that apply in the UK are made in Westminster and not in Brussels. It isn't about trying to change laws in Brussels or in Washington.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

I don't know why people are making so much out of this on this thread.

Obviously, when the UK is selling stuff to any country the standards of the other country need to be considered. For example, when the UK sells to the USA it will follow the standards of the USA. The same is true for the EU. This point is relatively uncontroversial.

Brexit is about ensuring that laws that apply in the UK are made in Westminster and not in Brussels. It isn't about trying to change laws in Brussels or in Washington.

Ultimately, the laws that apply in the UK are always made in Westminster. Product standards developed in Brussels only ever had legal force in the UK because UK law said they should.

The issue is whether UK law should impose automously-developed product standards, or product standards developed in collaboration with other EU countries.

But the point here is that the decision for autonomous standards has a non-trivial cost, which will be borne by those seeking to sell British products into the EEA market. And while that may be a cost worth paying, at the very least it's necessary to be able to say what its being paid for, and to make an argument for saying that, whatever it it, it is worth the cost paid.

The question becomes particularly acute when we realise that UK manufacturers, for the most part, don't want autonomous standards. Regardless of what modified standards the UK may introduce, most UK manufacturers are still going to manufacture to EU standards, because they want at least the possilblity of selling their products into the EEA market. So these extra costs are being imposed on them, not for their benefit, but for someone else's. This sharpens the challenge, because now we not only have to identify the benefit being obtained and make an argument that it is worth the cost, but we also have to identify those who obtain the benefit, and make an argument that they should be entitled to obtain that benefit at the expenseo of UK manufacturers and exporters.

theological

I think my point is that it is relatively uncontroversial because it makes sense that the UK would produce to EU standards for exporting to the EU. In the same way that the UK would conform to US standards for exporting to the US. This is not a key issue in respect to Brexit at least as I see it. It is primarily about regaining control of domestic policy that matters (immigration, trade, fishing, agriculture, and so on) and ensuring that these are decided in parliament and not in Brussels.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

I think my point is that it is relatively uncontroversial because it makes sense that the UK would produce to EU standards for exporting to the EU. In the same way that the UK would conform to US standards for exporting to the US. This is not a key issue in respect to Brexit at least as I see it. It is primarily about regaining control of domestic policy that matters (immigration, trade, fishing, agriculture, and so on) and ensuring that these are decided in parliament and not in Brussels.

It is a key issue with respect to Brexit, because it's going to impose signficant costs on the UK. And we can't seriously advance the argument that the costs of Brexit are not a key issue with respect to Brexit.

And if we're going to appeal to a concept like "domestic policy that matters" then we must expect to be invited to identify the domestic policy that doesn't matter, and say why it doesn't matter. And if fisheries (0.1% of UK GDP) is classed among the policies that matter then UK exports (30% of UK GDP) must be classed among the policies that matter a great deal.

First Up

theological wrote:

Obviously, when the UK is selling stuff to any country the standards of the other country need to be considered. For example, when the UK sells to the USA it will follow the standards of the USA. The same is true for the EU. This point is relatively uncontroversial.

I don't think you have grasped how a single market operates. The beauty of the EU single market is that companies and consumers in all member states can have confidence that components, ingedients, processes and finished goods across the market can be trusted. This allows maximum efficiency, specialisation and economies of scale - to everyone's benefit.

The EU Single Market replicates the US in that respect. Indiana, Texas, California and all others follow the same standards and are thus free to do business with each other, thereby creating a powerful single market.

None of them complain about the tyranny of Washington DC. They understand how it works.

theological

First Up wrote: »

I don't think you have grasped how a single market operates. The beauty of the EU single market is that companies and consumers in all member states can have confidence that components, ingedients, processes and finished goods across the market can be trusted. This allows maximum efficiency, specialisation and economies of scale - to everyone's benefit.

The EU Single Market replicates the US in that respect. Indiana, Texas, California and all others follow the same standards and are thus free to do business with each other, thereby creating a powerful single market.

None of them complain about the tyranny of Washington DC. They understand how it works.

I don't know why you bring up the single market when I haven't discussed it.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

I don't know why you bring up the single market when I haven't discussed it.

This may come as news to you, Theo, but you've joined a discussion on the single market.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

This may come as news to you, Theo, but you've joined a discussion on the single market.

I'm discussing how a third party, the UK will keep standards of other markets it trades into such as the US and the EU. Not being a member of the single market.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

I'm discussing how a third party, the UK will keep standards of other markets it trades into such as the US and the EU. Not being a member of the single market.

We're discussing that too, Theo. We're discussing how, even if they keep the standards of the EU that they already observe, UK manufacturers are still going to face significant costs and barriers when selling into the EEA that they don't currently face because the UK law does not require manufacturers to keep those standards, and therefore the fact that they have actuall done so will have to be certified and verified every time, at the manufacturers' expense.

UK exports to the EEA area boomed when the single market was completed in inth 1990s, because those costs and barriers were removed. The UK has now chosen to reimpose them. That will obviously have a significant negative effect on UK exports.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

I'm discussing how a third party, the UK will keep standards of other markets it trades into such as the US and the EU. Not being a member of the single market.

But surely the acceptance of standards, derived and decided upon by another countries faceless beraucrats is totally unacceptable?

I don't understand how you can be so against the UK being part of a group that decides on standards that the UK then adhere to but now expect UK companies to do that except now have no say whatsoever.

It appears to me that you accept the contradiction because that is simply required to do business, its just the way it is.

Brecht actually removes any input by UK into the standards that you accept many UK companies will need to and continue to adhere to. Except they have less say, less input, and no representation. When standards are being considered UK companies have no one to speak up for them..

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

But surely the acceptance of standards, derived and decided upon by another countries faceless beraucrats is totally unacceptable?

I don't understand how you can be so against the UK being part of a group that decides on standards that the UK then adhere to but now expect UK companies to do that except now have no say whatsoever.

It appears to me that you accept the contradiction because that is simply required to do business, its just the way it is.

Brecht actually removes any input by UK into the standards that you accept many UK companies will need to and continue to adhere to. Except they have less say, less input, and no representation. When standards are being considered UK companies have no one to speak up for them..

Why? The UK doesn't have control over what standards other sovereign nations such as the US require, or the EU member states require. Similarly, my argument is that the EU shouldn't dictate British law after the Brexit transition.

My argument is consistent.