Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

54and56

McGiver wrote: »

Scotland in fact is very similar to Norway in terms of population, geography and economy. EFTA is a good match for Scotland, at least temporarily while it's waiting to be processed by the EU for membership (will take years). I believe EFTA membership would happen quickly. Negotiating EU membership can take years. Would just Scotland sit nowhere in the interim?

All Scotland have to do is hire David Davis who will give the EU 6 weeks to negotiate a trade deal with Scotland. He will then ignore the EU for the first 5 weeks 6 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes before presenting them with an FTA he prepared earlier and handing Michel Barnier a pen to sign where the big red X is.





It's a proven strategy as Mr Davis knows the EU only start negotiating at the very last minute.

Can't understand why the UK ditched him as their Brexit Secretary. If only they'd left him in place..........

Imreoir2

54and56 wrote: »

Well "WTO Deal" is more accurate in that is does accurately describe the position the UK will be in if it doesn't agree a deal with the EU. The WTO terms is indeed a deal all members of the WTO have subscribed to.

"Australian Terms" is Brexiteer PR spin to try and project a false equivalence between the perception of Australia being a successful texport country who trade on WTO terms with the EU and the UK's ability to do the same.

The problem is the EU is the UK's main export market with 44% of it's total output going to EU countries.



Funnily enough, the EU isn't Australia's main market, that would be it's nearest economic neighbours in SE Asia so of course it can trade with the EU on WTO terms and still be successful as the EU simply isn't an important market for it!!



Australia also benefits from some very specific side deals with the EU to allow important export products like it's wine into the EU which the UK will not be granted by the EU, at least in the short term.

Even then Australia has been working hard for years to agree a much deeper FTA with the EU and is relatively close to doing so as it recognises that trading on WTO terms with the EU is a major barrier to it's exporters.

It is also worth noting that while 44% of UK trade goes to EU countries, it is not the case that it will be plain sailing with the other 56% of trade. Some of that goes to countries for which trade is regulated by EU trade deals. Canada, Korea, Mexico, Turkey, etc. Very few of those deals have been replicated by the UK, so it is not only with the EU that the UK will have trading dificulties in a few months, though the EU will certainly be the biggest and most obvious problem.

Does anyone know if the many facilitations that have been agreed over the years between the EU and the US will be rolled over for the UK in January, or will they also be facing tougher trading conditions with the US as a result of this debacle?

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, there is a difference between No Deal and Australia type deal, as alluded to by Alok in yesterdays LBC interview.

The UK are of the opinion that even in a no deal situation, one where they are ended the talks no less, there will be side deals done to deal with some of the issues that would arise.

This be be most easily seen in the view that since UK standards are currently in line with EU standards then there are no need for checks on Day 1. Also in the fact that UK controls will no be ready until at least July 2021.

The Brexiters who are of this opinion are wrong. The EU has always said there will be no "side-deals" in the event of a no-deal end to transition. What will happen is that the EU will make unilateral decisions about measures that it will take to alleviate adverse consequences for the EU and its member states. These measures may or may not also help to alleviate adverse consequences for the UK but, if they do, that will be an incidental by-product. The measures will be short-term, and will terminate when it suits the EU that they should terminate. There will be no negotation or agreement with the UK either about the introduction of these measures or about their withdrawal.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Brexiters who are of this opinion are wrong. The EU has always said there will be no "side-deals" in the event of a no-deal end to transition. What will happen is that the EU will make unilateral decisions about measures that it will take to alleviate adverse consequences for the EU and its member states. These measures may or may not also help to alleviate adverse consequences for the UK but, if they do, that will be an incidental by-product. The measures will be short-term, and will terminate when it suits the EU that they should terminate. There will be no negotation or agreement with the UK either about the introduction of these measures or about their withdrawal.

Plus, if they crash out, it must be remembered that the EU cannot bend regulations for the UK. The optics of that would be very poor. So, the UK will have to adhere to all pertinent EU regulations in the event of No Deal. Or stop exporting to the EU.

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Plus, if they crash out, it must be remembered that the EU cannot bend regulations for the UK. The optics of that would be very poor. So, the UK will have to adhere to all pertinent EU regulations in the event of No Deal. Or stop exporting to the EU.

No, the EU will temporarily waive selected rules where this is necessary to prevent harm to the EU or its member states. So for example UK financial institutions will likely have a grace period of 12 months to conform to EU requirements for third-country financial institutions. Certain aviation permissions for UK-based carriers will be extended for 9 months. Etc. This is to minimise disruption for EU member states.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, the EU will temporarily waive selected rules where this is necessary to prevent harm to the EU or its member states. So for example UK financial institutions will likely have a grace period of 12 months to conform to EU requirements for third-country financial institutions. Certain aviation permissions for UK-based carriers will be extended for 9 months. Etc. This is to minimise disruption for EU member states.

I was talking about standard exports. Food, clothing, electrical equipment etc.

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I was talking about standard exports. Food, clothing, electrical equipment etc.

They won't be waived, so the UK will have to adhere to those product standards. Of course, theyh are the product standards currently enforced by UK law, and there will be no immediate change to that, so adhering to them shouldn't be difficult.

But there'll still be a change. At the moment, because the UK (as a member state) is committed to enforcing EU standards, goods produced in the UK are taken to be compliant. After the end of transition, this won't be the case. Anyone importing the goods into the EU (for resale) will need to demonstrate that they are compliant with product standards. In practice this means that UK manufacturers will need to get compliance certified and provide the certification to their EU-based importers. This will cost money.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, there is a difference between No Deal and Australia type deal, as alluded to by Alok in yesterdays LBC interview.

The UK are of the opinion that even in a no deal situation, one where they are ended the talks no less, there will be side deals done to deal with some of the issues that would arise.

This be be most easily seen in the view that since UK standards are currently in line with EU standards then there are no need for checks on Day 1. Also in the fact that UK controls will no be ready until at least July 2021.

There are those who believe that this was the Brexiteer plan all along : a 'managed No Deal' of sorts i.e. a modified No Deal that suits Brexit UK.

But it's very unlikely the EU will play ball.

ambro25

I see in today's news, that not only did Tory MPs vote majoritarily to deny a physical proof of settled status to EU27inUK (I fully expected that one), they also took the opportunity of sniping UK citizens in Europe with their nationalist rhetoric, besides voting majoritarily to reject protections for child refugees.

It's like a LePen wet dream playing out in the House of Commons every other day.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

I see in today's news, that not only did Tory MPs vote majoritarily to deny a physical proof of settled status to EU27inUK (I fully expected that one), they also took the opportunity of sniping UK citizens in Europe with their nationalist rhetoric, besides voting majoritarily to reject protections for child refugees.

It's like a LePen wet dream playing out in the House of Commons every other day.

How Cummings thinks he can create a tech hub in a country stinking to high heaven of xenophobia is beyond me.

listermint

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How Cummings thinks he can create a tech hub in a country stinking to high heaven of xenophobia is beyond me.

Look at the broadband access across the UK in the Broadband forum..... Even thats a tell.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

They won't be waived, so the UK will have to adhere to those product standards. Of course, theyh are the product standards currently enforced by UK law, and there will be no immediate change to that, so adhering to them shouldn't be difficult.

But there'll still be a change. At the moment, because the UK (as a member state) is committed to enforcing EU standards, goods produced in the UK are taken to be compliant. After the end of transition, this won't be the case. Anyone importing the goods into the EU (for resale) will need to demonstrate that they are compliant with product standards. In practice this means that UK manufacturers will need to get compliance certified and provide the certification to their EU-based importers. This will cost money.

My point exactly. They can't derogate from EU regulations. Pascal Lamy warned of this four years ago when he said that tariffs won't be the problem for the UK, it will be regulations. So, they will be adhering to regulations over which they no longer have any influence. When you think about it, the blatant disregard for reality, fact and logic by this Tory government demonstrates that Brexit is a form of psychosis.

reslfj

Peregrinus wrote: »

They won't be waived, so the UK will have to adhere to those product standards. Of course, theyh are the product standards currently enforced by UK law, and there will be no immediate change to that, so adhering to them shouldn't be difficult.

January 1. 2021 the standards will no longer be enforced by the ECJ - and this is what matters for the import to the EU.
The actual goods mean almost nothing - most goods can be produced anywhere, and blue collar workers are becoming a 'commodity'.
It's a legal question.

But agreed for a very short time after Jan. 1. there may be a little "Lord Nelson at Copenhagen" with the French border control.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Anyone importing the goods into the EU (for resale) will need to demonstrate that they are compliant with product standards. In practice this means that UK manufacturers will need to get compliance certified and provide the certification to their EU-based importers. This will cost money.

IIRC - it's the importer that must get the EU certifications and are responsible for compliance of all import.

Does cost money and makes it much harder, especially for smaller UK exporters with more EU27 customers.

Lars

54and56

Peregrinus wrote: »

They won't be waived, so the UK will have to adhere to those product standards. Of course, theyh are the product standards currently enforced by UK law, and there will be no immediate change to that, so adhering to them shouldn't be difficult.

But there'll still be a change. At the moment, because the UK (as a member state) is committed to enforcing EU standards, goods produced in the UK are taken to be compliant. After the end of transition, this won't be the case. Anyone importing the goods into the EU (for resale) will need to demonstrate that they are compliant with product standards. In practice this means that UK manufacturers will need to get compliance certified and provide the certification to their EU-based importers. This will cost money.

Doesn't the UK have to apply to the EU to for third country status in order to be able to export food to the EU and it is refusing to make that application hence the pretext that being denied third country status by the EU (despite not applying for it) the UK would not be able to export food to NI as NI is deemed to be in the EU for goods which have a risk of crossing into the RoI?

reslfj

54and56 wrote: »

...
The problem is the EU is the UK's main export market with 44% of it's total output going to EU countries.

UK export statistics includes movement of financial gold out of the EU. Much goes to Switzerland for processing.
This export includes next to no 'UK added value' (only security transport to the airport), but it counts on the 56% side in above graph.


Without gold the actual - pre corona - UK export percent to the EU27 is more like 48-50% of total UK export.

Lars

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldEGd0ghNhg&feature=youtu.be

An Ciarraioch

House of Lords gives a crushing defeat to the Internal Market Bill, which seems unlikely now to become law in 2020, buying both negotiating teams time:

https://twitter.com/ConUnit_UCL/status/1318545099874312204

serfboard

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

House of Lords gives a crushing defeat to the Internal Market Bill, which seems unlikely now to become law in 2020

The result of this stunt by Cummings was expected - the purpose of the IMB was to get the ERG types in line before selling them out. At a big cost to the UK's trustworthiness.

Of course, this is not a new practice for the English - whenver they were about to sell out the Unionists in the North, they'd dispatch Her Maj to NI for a "surprise" visit.

robindch

Gove finds a positive side to vast trailer parks - jobs!

https://twitter.com/Joe_Mayes/status/1318218035111600129

An Ciarraioch

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

House of Lords gives a crushing defeat to the Internal Market Bill, which seems unlikely now to become law in 2020, buying both negotiating teams time:

https://twitter.com/ConUnit_UCL/status/1318545099874312204

No prises for guessing which way former Labour MP and now crossbench lord Kate Hoey voted.

103 crossbenchers voted against the government, 1 for.

CelticRambler

54and56 wrote: »

Doesn't the UK have to apply to the EU to for third country status in order to be able to export food to the EU and it is refusing to make that application hence the pretext that being denied third country status by the EU (despite not applying for it) the UK would not be able to export food to NI as NI is deemed to be in the EU for goods which have a risk of crossing into the RoI?

Yes, the UK does have to apply to be "listed" and no, to the best of my knowledge, they have still made no such application. This means that talk of the UK getting an Australia-type deal is erroneous, as Australia is listed.

The sticking point, as always, is the EU's requirements for guaranteed minimum environmental and animal welfare standards in respect of those animals or animal products exported to the EU, and agreement to allow EU inspectors validate the local laboratories and/or veterinary services and/or public health processes. The UK, as recently as last week, refuses to tolerate such an assault on their sovereign right to do whatever the hell they want, when they want, so they'll happily collectively die on one or more ditches rather than submit an application.

Pet owners and agri-business be damned; it's all the EU's fault. :rolleyes:

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yes, the UK does have to apply to be "listed" and no, to the best of my knowledge, they have still made no such application. This means that talk of the UK getting an Australia-type deal is erroneous, as Australia is listed.

The sticking point, as always, is the EU's requirements for guaranteed minimum environmental and animal welfare standards in respect of those animals or animal products exported to the EU, and agreement to allow EU inspectors validate the local laboratories and/or veterinary services and/or public health processes. The UK, as recently as last week, refuses to tolerate such an assault on their sovereign right to do whatever the hell they want, when they want, so they'll happily collectively die on one or more ditches rather than submit an application.

Pet owners and agri-business be damned; it's all the EU's fault. :rolleyes:

Assuming all EU countries are obliged to adhere to these animal welfare standards why are the atrocities listed in this link allowed to happen in Spain?
https://globalanimalwelfare.org/top-10-animal-cruelty-traditions-in-spain/

johnnyskeleton

RobMc59 wrote: »

Assuming all EU countries are obliged to adhere to these animal welfare standards why are the atrocities listed in this link allowed to happen in Spain?
https://globalanimalwelfare.org/top-10-animal-cruelty-traditions-in-spain/

Mod note:

1. The topic is Brexit, not animal cruelty.

2. The post you were referring to was discussing food standards and whether they can be agreed between the EU and the UK.

3. If those things that you link violate EU animal welfare regulations, a case can be brought against them. If they do not, then they are entitled to do so under EU law.

In all circumstances, your post is not engaging with the debate. Please do so.

Capt'n Midnight

Oz has LOTS of free trade deals with it's main trading partners New Zealand, Brunei, Burma, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore , Vietnam., China , US, Korea , Japan , Peru and Indonesia.
And there's the whole CPTPP thing.

And negotiations ongoing with EU, Gulf (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates) , India, UK(!) , (Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru)


And there's the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA)

The Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) is a trade agreement currently being negotiated by 23 members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), including the EU. Together, the participating countries account for 70% of world trade in services.

Is the UK still in that ??


https://oec.world/en/profile/country/aus/ Lots of generic exports. Metals, metal ores, scrap metal, coal and other fuels, food and animal products, wool , wood.

https://oec.world/en/profile/country/gbr/ UK exports a lot of gold. Because it imports a lot of gold.

geezerbutler

Deleted User wrote: »

No prises for guessing which way former Labour MP and now crossbench lord Kate Hoey voted.

103 crossbenchers voted against the government, 1 for.

It was encouraging to note that Lord Empey - former leader of UUP voted against the amendment.

When I went through that thread I read an article from Lord Butler who claimed that the house of lords have the power to stop the bill passing into law (or at least the part relating to unilateraly changing the withdrawal agreement) . My understaning is that the "regret" part - part 5 can not be forced in by some parliament act until after 31st December by which time it would be too late. If this is true than that is great news

CelticRambler

RobMc59 wrote: »

Assuming all EU countries are obliged to adhere to these animal welfare standards ...

You've lapsed into Brexiter mode, Rob. There are rules and tolerances for EU members; there are other rules for "third" countries that want to trade with the EU. The UK is now a third country: new status, new rules ... but everyone knew that when they voted, didn't they?

Once upon a time, the UK was a leader in promoting animal welfare improvements within the EU, including the suppression of abusive traditions. Unfortunately for all of us, the UK has decided that it no longer sees any advantage in working to improve the EU from within, and has opted instead to be a third country with the stated aim of not committing to maintaining existing animal welfare standards, stated not once, but twice - so unequivocally government policy.

Peregrinus

reslfj wrote: »

IIRC - it's the importer that must get the EU certifications and are responsible for compliance of all import.

Does cost money and makes it much harder, especially for smaller UK exporters with more EU27 customers.

Lars

Yes, it's the importer who is responsible for (a) paying tariffs, and (b) demonstrating conformity with product standards and other regulations.

But in practice the latter burden falls on the producer. How can the importer demonstrate that the goods were manufactured to a certain standard? He didn't manufacture them. So he asks the manufacturer to provide the necesssary certification; if the manufacturer can't or won't then the importer doesn't buy from him, but from another producer who can and will. So the cost of demonstrating compliance is born by the producer, not the importer.

Likewise the tariffs are paid by the importer, but the ultimate cost is passed on to others. The importer may charge more when he onsells the goodds, or he may pay less to the foreign producer, or a bit of both. Or, if the tariffs make the transaction uneconomic, the import simply doesn't happen, the producer loses the sale and the consumer has to buy different products (and the importing state gets no customs revenue).

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

Assuming all EU countries are obliged to adhere to these animal welfare standards why are the atrocities listed in this link allowed to happen in Spain?
https://globalanimalwelfare.org/top-10-animal-cruelty-traditions-in-spain/

None of the events in your list involve food production. The treatment of animals outside the agrifood sector is a matter for the member states; SFAIK the EU has no competence in this field and cannot legislate for it.

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

You've lapsed into Brexiter mode, Rob. There are rules and tolerances for EU members; there are other rules for "third" countries that want to trade with the EU. The UK is now a third country: new status, new rules ... but everyone knew that when they voted, didn't they?

Once upon a time, the UK was a leader in promoting animal welfare improvements within the EU, including the suppression of abusive traditions. Unfortunately for all of us, the UK has decided that it no longer sees any advantage in working to improve the EU from within, and has opted instead to be a third country with the stated aim of not committing to maintaining existing animal welfare standards, stated not once, but twice - so unequivocally government policy.

I'm not sure how highlighting cruelty to animals is a brexiteer trait and I agree it would be sensible to stick to established standards.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

I'm not sure how highlighting cruelty to animals is a brexiteer trait . . .

Ascribing responsiblity to the EU for things that the EU is not responsible for is a Brexiter trait, though.

Brexiters have for so long being describing the EU as an "empire" that they have now fallen into the error of believing their own propaganda. And, since their model for an empire is the British empire, they assume that the EU can do pretty much what it likes to its subject provinces without any kind of legal or political restraint and, therefore, if something bad happens anywhere in the EU, either (a) the EU caused it to happen, or at best (b) the EU allowed it to happen through the failure to exercise its power to prevent it.

This is, of course, completely wrong. The EU is not an empire; it is a supranational organisation made up of 27 sovereign states who retain their sovereignty. The EU cannot do what it likes; it can only perform the limited functions that its member states confer upon it. The EU deals with food standards and can therefore address questions of animal welfare that arise in relation to food production. It doesn't have a general power to legislate against animal cruelty; each member state does that for itself.

And, not that I am saying that you are a Brexiter, but not realising this is exactly the kind of mistake that Brexiters make.

Lumen

Peregrinus wrote: »

Brexiters have for so long being describing the EU as an "empire" that they have now fallen into the error of believing their own propaganda.

I have never heard or read a British person describe the EU as an "empire".

Can you cite examples?