Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Firblog

strandroad wrote: »

It's not about EU laws though, it's about standards. If you want to sell into EU, you need to keep appropriate standards. If you don't wish to keep such standards, you can choose not to sell into EU.

EU standards and laws are pretty much interchangeable in the trade talks, they are 'rules' which the EU sets and wants the UK to implement without having an input.

joe40

Firblog wrote: »

EU standards and laws are pretty much interchangeable in the trade talks, they are 'rules' which the EU sets and wants the UK to implement without having an input.

Which is perfectly reasonable if the UK is going to have tariff free access to EU markets.

CelticRambler

Firblog wrote: »

Forgive me please, I was referring to nation states.

That's what's got so many Brexiters into trouble. You might look at a single nation state and say they're a great trading partner, but as an exporter, I'd look at the whole bloc, because what happens in the bloc as a whole is far more important than what happens in one individual country. There have been numerous illustrations of how a "single" British export is made up of many different movements in and out of different EU countries.

If you read back up the thread, you'll see that a fairly sizeable chunk of Ireland's beef exports to the UK is made up of British beef coming over here to be slaughtered and processed before being sent back to them. They also send their cattle to the Netherlands. So in principle, yes, Ireland might suffer a loss in that trade - but if we don't kill their cattle for them, who else is going to do it?

In the meantime, whatever losses Irish industry suffers can be mitigated by the EU's negotiation power on the world stage. If you look in the bottom corner of the data you used, you'll see that Ireland's exports to China (incl. Hong Kong) Japan and Singapore are worth more than the (now out-of-date) trade with the UK. That's due, in part, to our membership of the EU and our ability to piggy-back on deals done for the whole community.

I want CE mark not UKCA on product that I buy.

J Mysterio

So, eh... a French company has the contract to monitor British shipping vessels.

Brexiteers have long hailed the “sea of opportunity” that awaits British fishermen and women after the UK leaves the EU — but now it has emerged that their boats will be monitored by a French company.

The business that won the tender to track UK fishing vessels wherever they operate, as well as foreign-licensed boats in British waters, is Collecte Localisation Satellites (CLS),
a French maritime surveillance provider.

The contract was awarded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in late summer having previously been held by a British firm, Globavista.

Sunday Times

CelticRambler

Firblog wrote: »

EU standards and laws are pretty much interchangeable in the trade talks, they are 'rules' which the EU sets and wants the UK to implement without having an input.

So the same attitude they take to Switzerland, for example. What's your point?

Widdensushi

[QUOTE=Firblog;


Irish Praetorian also very dismissive of the effect on fishing industry, says "Now that might well be unfortunate, but a sensible and sober approach to the situation might well value our exports of ink over our exports of fish" who cares about the 14000 odd jobs, it's all about the value eh? It's not about the value of the exports, it's what it contribute to the economy, people empolyed, communities that would be devastated with the loss of those jobs.



Temp funding from the EU? LOL, what do you think will happen when UK stops all EU boats entering its waters? Where will all those French/Belgian/Spanish/Dutch etc boats go to fish? Let's think, what country will then have the biggest body of water, with the biggest stocks of fish? Would that be us? Then will they want a share of those stocks? you can bet Macron's left testicle they will, and Macron will want a share of that cake, even though they have no historical rights (isn't that a great term) in those waters. Then the temp funding will run out, and that will be that, c'est fini for Irish fishing industry.


Anyway this seems to be a rather unbiased piece in the Guardian as to where the sticking points are, as you see, EU wants unfettered access to UK waters for 10 years? Seems fair enough doesn't it? Of course the French even want continued access within the 12 mile zone - sure that's fair enough too.[/QUOTE]

The French have more fishing rights in irish waters for many species than Irish boats, monkfish for example 4 or 5 times our quota, they are better negotiators and created alot of false records of landings at a time when irish authorities were not collecting our own data. Their quota was so much above the reality that alot of fish was going uncaught, gradually they sold rights to the Spanish who are catching it now.

paul71

joe40 wrote: »

Which is perfectly reasonable if the UK is going to have tariff free access to EU markets.

Exactly, why would we give free access to our markets to a country and at the same time allow them freedom to potentially cut holiday days to 10 a year, increase working hours to 50 a week, or reduce the working age protections.

That would give that country the ready opportunity to enact changes to their laws to attract employment away from the EU thus undermining workers rights within the EU.

CrabRevolution

Firblog wrote: »

EU standards and laws are pretty much interchangeable in the trade talks, they are 'rules' which the EU sets and wants the UK to implement without having an input.

Why should the UK get any say in making EU rules? They voted to remove themselves from the EU rule making process, so can't complain that they now have no say.

The UK effectively want to stay in the EU in terms of trading with the single market, but at the same time leave the EU in terms of rules. The EU have been pretty clear and consistent that you can't just decide to quit the rules while still keeping the benefits.

Firblog

paul71 wrote: »

The withdrawal agreement puts NI outside the UK for tariff purposes, 3 billion of our exports go there. That puts the UK firmly in 4th place after USA, Belgium, Germany, and China in rapidly closing.

In addition to the nation states listed above 4 other countries in the single market each account for more than 3% of our exports.

93% of our exports do not go to the UK. I see no reason why you could make a guess that more jobs in Ireland are dependent the UK than any of those first 3 countries, in fact it is reasonable to guess the reverse is true given the low labour intensity of the nature of our exports there ie Agriculture not industrial.

AFIK Nothern Ireland is not part of the UK ?


Here is a list of our main (by value) exports

1. Pharmaceuticals: US$53.5 billion (31.5% of total exports)
2. Organic chemicals: $35.6 billion (21%)
3. Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $15.2 billion (9%)
4. Electrical machinery, equipment: $11.7 billion (6.9%)
5. Machinery including computers: $9.8 billion (5.7%)
6. Perfumes, cosmetics: $8.8 billion (5.2%)
7. Aircraft, spacecraft: $4.6 billion (2.7%)
8. Other chemical goods: $4.1 billion (2.4%)
9. Meat: $3.5 billion (2.1%)
10. Dairy, eggs, honey: $3.4 billion (2%)

Both USA and Belgium/Lux are huge importers of pharma/chem products - big customers by value I grant you, however how many actual jobs are supported by those industries? 25 - 50K?



UK on the other hand is a huge importer of agri products (low value exports) but support 200K +/- jobs


Which sector would you rather take a big hit? Which sector will take the greatest hit if there is no trade deal?

Firblog

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Why should the UK get any say in making EU rules? They voted to remove themselves from the EU rule making process, so can't complain that they now have no say.

The UK effectively want to stay in the EU in terms of trading with the single market, but at the same time leave the EU in terms of rules. The EU have been pretty clear and consistent that you can't just decide to quit the rules while still keeping the benefits.

Do any other countries / blocs with agreements with the EU have to abide by rules in that respect, do they have to implement exactly the same standards as those in the EU?

I note everyone is ignoring the problem with fishing rights, is that a sign that everyone knows the EU is acting silly beggars looking for continued access to UK waters?

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

I want CE mark not UKCA on product that I buy.

Unless there's a deal or the UK unilaterally accept EU standards all UK exports to the EU, and places that the EU shares standards with will have to get double certification. With the increased costs and paperwork.

But didn't the UK and Oz agree to recognise each others standards ?

Capt'n Midnight

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Why should the UK get any say in making EU rules? They voted to remove themselves from the EU rule making process, so can't complain that they now have no say.

Or why should the UK get more influence in the EU than Norway ?

Norway means accepting the four freedoms including movement, tariffs on some goods and paying per capita the same as the UK did when they used to get the rebate etc etc.

paul71

Firblog wrote: »

AFIK Nothern Ireland is not part of the UK ?


Here is a list of our main (by value) exports

1. Pharmaceuticals: US$53.5 billion (31.5% of total exports)
2. Organic chemicals: $35.6 billion (21%)
3. Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $15.2 billion (9%)
4. Electrical machinery, equipment: $11.7 billion (6.9%)
5. Machinery including computers: $9.8 billion (5.7%)
6. Perfumes, cosmetics: $8.8 billion (5.2%)
7. Aircraft, spacecraft: $4.6 billion (2.7%)
8. Other chemical goods: $4.1 billion (2.4%)
9. Meat: $3.5 billion (2.1%)
10. Dairy, eggs, honey: $3.4 billion (2%)

Both USA and Belgium/Lux are huge importers of pharma/chem products - big customers by value I grant you, however how many actual jobs are supported by those industries? 25 - 50K?



UK on the other hand is a huge importer of agri products (low value exports) but support 200K +/- jobs


Which sector would you rather take a big hit? Which sector will take the greatest hit if there is no trade deal?

Stop selectively choosing which facts to reply to. NI is not part of any future tariffs in the event of no deal, end of story.

Parma/tech in Ireland 25k jobs? Try 300k to 400k.

Agri employment in Ireland is about 3.5% or about 100k of the workforce. Your estimates may have been accurate in 1950.

I would rather the hit is taken no-where but forced to choose, anybody with a modicum of sense would choose the sector that is by far our largest employer, source of revenue and growing above a declining market with very low employment rates and in many areas such as Suckler herds loss making.

Jizique

Firblog wrote: »

Do any other countries / blocs with agreements with the EU have to abide by rules in that respect, do they have to implement exactly the same standards as those in the EU?

I note everyone is ignoring the problem with fishing rights, is that a sign that everyone knows the EU is acting silly beggars looking for continued access to UK waters?

Why is it silly beggars? Access to waters in return for access to markets? Access for fishing communities who fished the waters for centuries?

PeadarCo

Firblog wrote: »

Do any other countries / blocs with agreements with the EU have to abide by rules in that respect, do they have to implement exactly the same standards as those in the EU?

I note everyone is ignoring the problem with fishing rights, is that a sign that everyone knows the EU is acting silly beggars looking for continued access to UK waters?

You can sell anything in the EU providing it meets EU standards. However for countries outside the EU Customs Union all goods face Customs checks will all the delays, paperwork etc that come with that. The UK wants to avoid all that due to massive economic damage that would cause to the UK economy ie massive tailbacks, food shortage, destroying just in time supply chains etc. To give you an idea of the problems this would cause the UK is to look at what happened when the French tried a trial run a week or two ago. The French only checked passports ie they didn't do all the customs checks required for countries outside the EU customs union. However even these relatively limited checks caused a multi kilometer tailbacks in Kent.

In relation to fishing the EU is trying to protect the UK fishing industry. Remember most of the fish, UK fishers catch are exported to the EU. Lack of access to the EU will do massive damage to the UK. And also remember historically even pre EU fishermen from other countries regularly caught fish in UK waters. I think it was Belgium that brought up agreements with the UK from the 1600's entitling them to fish in UK waters. So if the UK ban other countries from fishing in it will be doing something it won't have done in centuries if ever.

BonnieSituation

Firblog wrote: »

From day one the EU have been consistent that the UK must adopt EU laws if they want to trade tariff free with the EU, well that's ok, the UK have been consistent that once they leave the EU they will make their own laws.



Why would UK agree to implement any EU laws without having input into them - they're not Norway.



That is the reason there is an impasse in the negotiations

I'm assuming you fall into the weird "poor UK/EU bad" wing of Irish politics? The UK can go and do what they want, they're the ones asking for a FTA with the EU.

The EU have a price for that and it's up to the UK to pay that price. I mean, it's kinda obvious for those of us in this echo chamber. You'd think the more knowledgeable observers like yourself would get that by now, wouldn't ya?

Ludo

Deleted User wrote: »

I want CE mark not UKCA on product that I buy.

No need to worry about that I would imagine.
Even with a deal, I don't think products subject to CE marking can be sold in the EU without meeting the standards required and being marked with it.

CE marking will not be needed to sell in UK but UK firms will never be able to sell into EU market without going thru CE certification. Non-CE marked products will not be sold in the EU.

CrabRevolution

Firblog wrote: »

Do any other countries / blocs with agreements with the EU have to abide by rules in that respect, do they have to implement exactly the same standards as those in the EU?

I note everyone is ignoring the problem with fishing rights, is that a sign that everyone knows the EU is acting silly beggars looking for continued access to UK waters?

I'm sure you've seen this image numerous times. The UK want access comparable to the states at the top left, but want the rules associated with the states at the bottom right. The EU can't give this, so there has to be a trade off to gain that kind of access to the EU market. The trade off in this case is a commitment not to undercut the EU by lowering standards or unfairly subsidising their own industries. It's not in the EU's interests to allow the UK unfettered access to the EU market if the UK has free rein on standards and state aid.

Imagine a deal was struck with no level playing field provisions. A British and a French company both make different brands of chair and are competing for market share. The French company are bound by EU laws on the environment, workers rights etc. and the French government can't just hand it money or contracts either under EU state aid rules. How can it be expected to compete against the UK company who may only have to meet new lower UK standards and who could benefit from unlimited subsidy from the UK government?

rock22

snowstorm445 wrote: »

What is the point of deadlines if they're not worth the paper they're written on? There was so much bluster about the sacrosanct importance of the withdrawal agreement deadlines last year
...............

The EU has the potential to be a major player in the world, and it's leaders must be aware of what the rest of the world takes away from these negotiations.
..........

In my opinion they seem to suffer from poor judgement regarding their self-awareness and the image they present to the rest of the world.

I couldn't agree more with your post. But even further, the EU 27 indulged the UK even before Brexit. The UK would sit around the table with everyone else, agree new rules etc and then a few years later, look for exception or derogation. Mrs. Thatcher started it with her rebate, but then we had various standards in metric units not implemented, then the Euro. In every case the UK said " but we are special" and the others indulged them. Is it any wonder Cameroon thought he could threaten the Council with e referendum?

Having played a constructive and stateman-like role up to now, our Taoiseach and Foreign Minister is running around in a panic, wishing to bend over backways to appease the British.

And I am not unaware of the economic factors but a strong devaluation of GBP will almost certainly have an even worse affect. Surely we should be looking to replace British exports to EU rahter than whinging about what we might lose. We can certainly replace some of the Welsh lambs to France and the Scotch Whiskey , for a start.

murphaph

https://twitter.com/MartinSelmayr/status/1338171694326964228

Selmayr says the document is almost ready for the signatures, but the ZDF Brussels correspondent responded with "almost". Selmayr responded with "where there's a will there's a way".

Edit, Selmayr may be tired. His German is all over the place in the tweet lol.

Imreoir2

Firblog wrote: »

AFIK Nothern Ireland is not part of the UK ?


Here is a list of our main (by value) exports

1. Pharmaceuticals: US$53.5 billion (31.5% of total exports)
2. Organic chemicals: $35.6 billion (21%)
3. Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $15.2 billion (9%)
4. Electrical machinery, equipment: $11.7 billion (6.9%)
5. Machinery including computers: $9.8 billion (5.7%)
6. Perfumes, cosmetics: $8.8 billion (5.2%)
7. Aircraft, spacecraft: $4.6 billion (2.7%)
8. Other chemical goods: $4.1 billion (2.4%)
9. Meat: $3.5 billion (2.1%)
10. Dairy, eggs, honey: $3.4 billion (2%)

Both USA and Belgium/Lux are huge importers of pharma/chem products - big customers by value I grant you, however how many actual jobs are supported by those industries? 25 - 50K?



UK on the other hand is a huge importer of agri products (low value exports) but support 200K +/- jobs


Which sector would you rather take a big hit? Which sector will take the greatest hit if there is no trade deal?

Do you have any source for your job figures here or are they just a guess?

10000maniacs

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I'm sure you've seen this image numerous times. The UK want access comparable to the states at the top left, but want the rules associated with the states at the bottom right. The EU can't give this, so there has to be a trade off to gain that kind of access to the EU market. The trade off in this case is a commitment not to undercut the EU by lowering standards or unfairly subsidising their own industries. It's not in the EU's interests to allow the UK unfettered access to the EU market if the UK has free rein on standards and state aid.

Imagine a deal was struck with no level playing field provisions. A British and a French company both make different brands of chair and are competing for market share. The French company are bound by EU laws on the environment, workers rights etc. and the French government can't just hand it money or contracts either under EU state aid rules. How can it be expected to compete against the UK company who may only have to meet new lower UK standards and who could benefit from unlimited subsidy from the UK government?

The Australian Minus step is missing from that diagram. That's what they will probably end up getting.
If the UK get what they are negotiating for, the Netherlands will do the same thing, because that's all they really need from the EU too.

Jizique

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I'm sure you've seen this image numerous times. The UK want access comparable to the states at the top left, but want the rules associated with the states at the bottom right. The EU can't give this, so there has to be a trade off to gain that kind of access to the EU market. The trade off in this case is a commitment not to undercut the EU by lowering standards or unfairly subsidising their own industries. It's not in the EU's interests to allow the UK unfettered access to the EU market if the UK has free rein on standards and state aid.

Imagine a deal was struck with no level playing field provisions. A British and a French company both make different brands of chair and are competing for market share. The French company are bound by EU laws on the environment, workers rights etc. and the French government can't just hand it money or contracts either under EU state aid rules. How can it be expected to compete against the UK company who may only have to meet new lower UK standards and who could benefit from unlimited subsidy from the UK government?

Don’t mind chairs; think of cars and Nissan, and the UK govt say they will subsidize a battery producer that supplies them, plus they get a rule of origin derogation on parts (the % that need to be European) and Nissan exports 600k Qashqaii and Juke into the EU resulting in the closure of 2 Peugeot plants and a Renault plant, both in France, plus a VW plant in Germany - this is why this issue is crucial

Jizique

10000maniacs wrote: »

The Australian Minus step is missing from that diagram. That's what they will probably end up getting.
If the UK get what they are negotiating for, the Netherlands will do the same thing, because that's all they really need from the EU too.

We might as well leave too at that stage

Hurrache

Firblog wrote: »

Quite frankly most on here act like they've been dumped and can't understand how that happened, how could they not be liked when they are so wonderful? and just want to make the fecker that dumped them pay, to make the split as difficult as possible for them. Really its time you all just got over it, they don't like you, they've left and aren't coming back, but you've got to come to some arrangement or it is going to hurt everyone more than it needs to.

peter kern wrote: »

she is the most influential person that outlines barrniers mandate, there can be little doubt about it in my mind.

Ah lads, c'mon, red top takes at best.

CelticRambler

Firblog wrote: »

Do any other countries / blocs with agreements with the EU have to abide by rules in that respect, do they have to implement exactly the same standards as those in the EU?

Simple answer: yes. Switzerland (again - note the similarities: small country bordering the EU) recently had to hold a referendum on their gun control laws ( yes, you read that right - gun control) to bring them into line with those in the EU so that they could maintain the same level of access to the Single Market that they have enjoyed for the last few decades.

I suppose what's most interesting about your posts over the last few pages is that you are, almost certainly, representative of a segment of the Irish population that is just as uninformed about the whys and wherefores of the EU as the infamous 52% across the Irish Sea, and five years (yes, five - starting even before the referendum was held) five years after the government took steps to mitigate the potential economic damage and social disruption on the Island of Ireland, people such as yourself are suddenly waking up to what's going on.

Instead of spouting nonsense about Micheál Martin and Simon Coveny panicking, you should be glad that Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveny were far more on the ball than you (and others new to this thread) and got our side of the deal sorted out last year.

BlitzKrieg

Firblog wrote: »

Do any other countries / blocs with agreements with the EU have to abide by rules in that respect, do they have to implement exactly the same standards as those in the EU?

EFTA members have the abide by the rules in that respect, the difference between the UK and EFTA is that EFTA established an annual system where they process what laws need updating or EU laws incorporating. The UK's entire stance currently is them telling the EU to trust them to keep in line but dont have any systems in place to address if they dont. Whats coming out most in the UK side of the debate is they dont offer anything to form the base of their future relationship, no structured process to address and process any changes in the future, they keep insisting on just leaving it the current institution of westminster.

Which has just tried to undermine the last international treaty the UK did with the EU and has spent the entire Brexit process undermining and ****ting on its devolved powers (powers the EU directly worked with directly in the form of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, so they blatantly see the power grab).

The EU would probably be more willing to apply a similar system with the UK, if the UK, you know...

actually made an effort. The UK's entire process towards Brexit has been politically the laziest effort.

The UK could have avoided a lot of this if the brexiteers leading this mess had even the ounce of actual political ability and foresight on them. Instead they've overstuffed westminster's bureaucracy more then ever and made enemies home and abroad in the process.

peter kern

Firblog wrote: »

Do any other countries / blocs with agreements with the EU have to abide by rules in that respect, do they have to implement exactly the same standards as those in the EU?

I note everyone is ignoring the problem with fishing rights, is that a sign that everyone knows the EU is acting silly beggars looking for continued access to UK waters?

switzerland has to abide to it and they have to give freedom of movement on top of it and so has norway. geographicaly those are the countries that matter most not canada thats very far away.


i did not think that the eu would give you free access without the uk paying a few billions every year for that privilege . so in my mind you negotiated well. of course brexit costs us but it costs you more so i would have used that bargaining power to charge you for the access. to reduce our loss.

but lets put it anohter since you outlined the differences between Eu and uk that we all knew from the start.
if liverpool plays against colchester who is more likely to follow their game plan ...
i think so far uk aka colchester is putting up a good fight but liverpool aka the eu is likely to win espcially since it is a home game for liverpool ie uk the you left not the eu . and i dont think colchester would cry after the gaame that liverpool did not play ball with their game plan...

if the eu wanted to join the uk than it would be different , that its your home game and iam sure you could keep your fish.


so you are getting much more than switzerland and norway as you have obviously more bargaining power.

but its simple eu 450 milion people have more bargaining power than 60 milion * as you correctly pointed out that the norway is not the uk , but the uk is not the EU , and i guess this deal refeclets how important the uk is important but not that super important.

as for the fish i hear you, at the same time you sold 55 % of fishing rights abroad so if fish was that important to uk why did you sell it... and if you dont have a trade deal with eurpope who will you sell the fish too ...
as i siad you put up a good fight and the eu gave you concessions in many places but there is also a limit and the fish seems to be a big deal for france etc . i dont quite understand why, but neither do i understand why suddently the fish is so important to the uk... so this is nationalist bs from both sides. or as somebody said nicely here its a red hering.


but rember you dont have to accpt the deal you are a sovereign nation.that sovereignly left the EU but for gods sake stop crying that we are not fair to you.its your choice after all. you cant expect the eu give you a deal that would make it less attractive for other nations to be in the club.
its not a punisment but there needs to be bonuses to be in a club. and if that bonus is a bad as a tesco club card * then there would be no point for the eu.


at the end of the day you dont have to follow the eu rules but then you have to pay more for the access * as i said i would have made you pay for that access from the start and given you your fish for free and charge you 5 bilion euro a year for the privelege to have not tarrifs * so you are free to adjust how much you want to pay.

and i guess you have to accept that nobody is going to trust the UK since the internal bill stunt. or treating your own parliament with contempt.
so there needs to be a clear arbitrater. like in a soccer game to finish my soccer comparasion.
i guess nobody would grand cholchesters wish to play against liverpool without a referee so they could foul all the liverpool player and win ...

and lastly given all this nonsense language like placing military ships protecing the water or french fisherman cutting of uk i think we should really appreciate what the EU has done for peace in europe since its start. again the only people happy about that will be russia and china .

we in the EU would ALL be much better off if the uk had never left.
nobody that has a bit of brain wanted the uk to leave in the first place .
and many want the UK to be back as fast as possible.

Because Johnson is a blackguard the fear the E.U. have now is that as his histrionics haven't worked he will probably agree to anything with no intention of meaningfully honouring the terms of the agreement.
I wouldn't want to be the E.U. negotiators.