Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

The UK has pushed back the already delayed implementation of import controls that was originally going to operate from 1st July at least a further 6 months.

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1370005701058322437

Great news for EU exporters to the EU, as well as every other country I presume under WTO rules but makes difference to the UK exported to the EU as the EU have no reason to defer on their side.

So at least a full year of no controls on imports! This is based on Brexit which was all about taking back control.

Even if one believes that Brexit is a good idea, this is complete incompetence from the government.

murphaph

Nice of them to give us (in the EU) another year of transition to diversify away from UK markets. I hope Irish firms use the time wisely and further reduce our dependence on that country.

yagan

Leroy42 wrote: »

So at least a full year of no controls on imports! This is based on Brexit which was all about taking back control.

If you told a Brexiter last year that in 2021 the UK government would not protect UK businesses from EU imports they'd be hard pushed to explain how this was taking back control.

Seems more like free fall.

Leroy42

yagan wrote: »

If you told a Brexiter last year that in 2021 the UK government would not protect UK businesses from EU imports they'd be hard pushed to explain how this was taking back control.

Seems more like free fall.

They are using Covid as an excuse. Saying that the systems are all ready, but they don't want to implement the changes due to the already negative effects of Covid.

It is a real pity that Covid sprang up out of nowhere after they signed the deal and after the opportunity to extend the transition had passed.

yagan

Plus added to UK businesses misery is the fact that all non-EU nations can now sue under WTO rules for the same free access.

I know the UK loves its pound shops but they're rapidly spiralling towards a pound shop economy, cheaper goods chasing dwindling spending power.

Akrasia

yagan wrote: »

If you told a Brexiter last year that in 2021 the UK government would not protect UK businesses from EU imports they'd be hard pushed to explain how this was taking back control.

Seems more like free fall.

Most brexiteers like EU imports, cheese, wine, cognac, BMWs etc, it's the immigrants they don't want

If you really really want to annoy them, we can just remind them that they will still need the same number of immigrants to do essential work like picking fruit in the summer, its just that they'll be coming from even poorer, even browner countries now on longer term visas https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/india-enhanced-trade-partnership/

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

The UK has pushed back the already delayed implementation of import controls that was originally going to operate from 1st July at least a further 6 months.

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1370005701058322437

Great news for EU exporters to the EU, as well as every other country I presume under WTO rules but makes difference to the UK exported to the EU as the EU have no reason to defer on their side.

In fact, if the UK has (unilaterally :rolleyes: ) decided not to enforce physical sanitary/phytosanitary checks on imports until 2022, then the EU has every incentive to be extra vigilant with respect to the UK->EU movement of products of animal or vegetable origin.

political analyst

Mutual recognition by Britain and the EU of each other's safety standards could have been implemented without Britain staying in the single-market and customs union after Brexit, couldn't it?

The idea that food produced in Britain ceased to be safe for the EU single-market as soon as Britain left the single market is absurd.

Does the European Commission think that safety standards in Britain collapsed overnight?

Silent Running

political analyst wrote: »

Mutual recognition by Britain and the EU of each other's safety standards could have been implemented without Britain staying in the single-market and customs union after Brexit, couldn't it?

The idea that food produced in Britain ceased to be safe for the EU single-market as soon as Britain left the single market is absurd.

Does the European Commission think that safety standards in Britain collapsed overnight?

That's not the point though. Britain became a third country and falls into a category that requires some rules to protect the EU.

Britain might have ceased to be safe, without EU standards and checks, who would know?

cameramonkey

political analyst wrote: »

Mutual recognition by Britain and the EU of each other's safety standards could have been implemented without Britain staying in the single-market and customs union after Brexit, couldn't it?

The idea that food produced in Britain ceased to be safe for the EU single-market as soon as Britain left the single market is absurd.

Does the European Commission think that safety standards in Britain collapsed overnight?

Did the UK push for this recognition and agree to checks?

schmoo2k

political analyst wrote: »

Mutual recognition by Britain and the EU of each other's safety standards could have been implemented without Britain staying in the single-market and customs union after Brexit, couldn't it?

The idea that food produced in Britain ceased to be safe for the EU single-market as soon as Britain left the single market is absurd.

Does the European Commission think that safety standards in Britain collapsed overnight?

Of course not - its why we agreed to the transition period.

What date do you think would be better?

political analyst

Silent Running wrote: »

That's not the point though. Britain became a third country and falls into a category that requires some rules to protect the EU.

Britain might have ceased to be safe, without EU standards and checks, who would know?

People would know, alright. It's as if Brussels bureaucrats don't watch the news! In Britain, nothing gets past anyone these days!

political analyst

schmoo2k wrote: »

Of course not - its why we agreed to the transition period.

What date do you think would be better?

I didn't say another date would be better.

It was agreed there would be a transition period. So why were there still food shortages in supermarkets in NI?

Enzokk

political analyst wrote: »

Mutual recognition by Britain and the EU of each other's safety standards could have been implemented without Britain staying in the single-market and customs union after Brexit, couldn't it?

The idea that food produced in Britain ceased to be safe for the EU single-market as soon as Britain left the single market is absurd.

Does the European Commission think that safety standards in Britain collapsed overnight?

It could have been agreed that because their standards were the same and has not changed that a deal should have been in place to recognize this. The UK Parliament had a chance to guarantee that they would not drop their food standards with an amendment as well. They voted against this. Why would you reject the opportunity to maintain your high standards you currently have that would ease trade barriers, unless you had plans to lower them.

MPs vote down crucial food standards amendment

MPs have voted again to reject enshrining UK food standards into law in the Agriculture Bill, a move which risks farmers being undercut in future trade deals.

The Bill returned to the House of Commons on Wednesday night (4 November) after peers voted through crucial amendments.

political analyst

cameramonkey wrote: »

Did the UK push for this recognition and agree to checks?

No.

Silent Running

political analyst wrote: »

People would know, alright. It's as if Brussels bureaucrats don't watch the news! In Britain, nothing gets past anyone these days!

Well that's questionable. Brexit got past the entire population. Forced on some, but with the full agreement of the majority.

Professor Moriarty

political analyst wrote: »

I didn't say another date would be better.

It was agreed there would be a transition period. So why were there still food shortages in supermarkets in NI?

Because the UK didn't understand what they signed and weren't prepared.

Seth Brundle

political analyst wrote: »

Mutual recognition by Britain and the EU of each other's safety standards could have been implemented without Britain staying in the single-market and customs union after Brexit, couldn't it?

The idea that food produced in Britain ceased to be safe for the EU single-market as soon as Britain left the single market is absurd.

Does the European Commission think that safety standards in Britain collapsed overnight?

For the UK to trade within the EU, they would be required to meet basic standards as set by the EU. However, the UK thought having to abide by the EU's rules when trading with the EU is grossly unfair. Note that those rules were partly conceived by the UK when they were an EU member.
In a similar manner, the EU would be required to meet UK basic standards. I don't recall there being any huffing and puffing around this.

political analyst

Silent Running wrote: »

Well that's questionable. Brexit got past the entire population. Forced on some, but with the full agreement of the majority.

Haven't you heard the saying, "Nothing gets past me"? It means "Nothing happens without me being aware of it".

political analyst

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Because the UK didn't understand what they signed and weren't prepared.

But the grace period meant no checks on food shipments from Britain to NI during that period, didn't it?

Nody

political analyst wrote: »

I didn't say another date would be better.

It was agreed there would be a transition period. So why were there still food shortages in supermarkets in NI?

Because UK exporters are clueless on filling in the forms required and received no warning from the UK Government (Boris living up to his "F-k business" standards) on what would be required. Of course not helped by Boris telling everyone that there would be no forms etc. As to why not trust UK standards? Well how about "the simple fact they refuse to write into law that they will keep those standards and give ministers the right to ignore the food standard rules". UK ministers have not exactly shown themselves to be competent or forth coming with the truth in the last couple of years after all and there's no reason to believe that they will not lower said standards.

ancapailldorcha

Silent Running wrote: »

Well that's questionable. Brexit got past the entire population. Forced on some, but with the full agreement of the majority.

Brexit got past a slim majority on the basis that it would be defined later according to the whims of whoever was leading the Tory party. I think Cameron, May and Johnson would have had different approaches to the negotiations. Cameron would have pushed for as close an alignment on trade as his party would allow, May was determined to protect the Union while Johnson doesn't seem to care either way.

CelticRambler

political analyst wrote: »

Mutual recognition by Britain and the EU of each other's safety standards could have been implemented without Britain staying in the single-market and customs union after Brexit, couldn't it?

The idea that food produced in Britain ceased to be safe for the EU single-market as soon as Britain left the single market is absurd.

Does the European Commission think that safety standards in Britain collapsed overnight?

They could have been agreed, yes. But Britain left the EU at the end of January 2020 and subsequently spend eleven months going to great lengths to tell the EU (and write it into UK domestic legislation) that their food safety standards could not be trusted to remain at the level they were beforehand.

Lest their be any doubt as to the direction the government wished to take, Johnson gave the green light to one sector to use EU-banned insectides in Jan 2021.

Given that we know there are not enough food inspectors in the UK to carry out the relatively modest number of checks on their internal movements to NI, can you point to any concrete measure enacted or applied by the UK government that demonstrates why the EU should recognise standards that the UK are incapable of supervising or enforcing? Your username suggests you should have no trouble finding such evidence.

Leroy42

political analyst wrote: »

But the grace period meant no checks on food shipments from Britain to NI during that period, didn't it?

Yes, and it was a very generous concession by the EU to allow that extra time.

But the UK were in a rush to be free, and so opted out of extending that period, and as such left the mutual recognition system. They chose that, the option to extend the transition period was on the table and they refused.

Now, we are back to the UK pleading for special treatment. They want to continue to be treated the same as members, without being members.

So we come to the point, why would the EU give this concession to the UK? What is it in form them?

I see no benefit to EU but lots of benefits to the UK. So again, the UK are faced with a choice, but rather than face that choice and make a decision, they want to continue with the lie that there are no choices and only benefits.

Silent Running

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Brexit got past a slim majority on the basis that it would be defined later according to the whims of whoever was leading the Tory party. I think Cameron, May and Johnson would have had different approaches to the negotiations. Cameron would have pushed for as close an alignment on trade as his party would allow, May was determined to protect the Union while Johnson doesn't seem to care either way.

The point still stands though: a majority, however slim, forced Brexit on the entire populace.

I can't help but feel that the general election copper fastened the Brexit result. I know, first past the post, etc... but the result made the Brexit mess much worse.

Democracy in action? Hmmm.

schmoo2k

political analyst wrote: »

I didn't say another date would be better.

It was agreed there would be a transition period. So why were there still food shortages in supermarkets in NI?

You did say that in your opinion the current Jan 01 2021 was the wrong date, I was simply wondering what you would consider to be a more appropriate date?

ancapailldorcha

Silent Running wrote: »

The point still stands though: a majority, however slim, forced Brexit on the entire populace.

I can't help but feel that the general election copper fastened the Brexit result. I know, first past the post, etc... but the result made the Brexit mess much worse.

Democracy in action? Hmmm.

Yeah but there's a bit more to it.

2017 showed that the public were split on the issue. Nobody expected the Leave side to win but win they did. Both main parties had also committed themselves to implementing some form of it.

2019 demonstrated the electorate's frustration with the issue. Labour were offering a People's Vote whereas Johnson was offering an end to the whole saga and they opted for the latter.

Ultimately, though we could have got a Labour government who might have cancelled the whole thing but it was not to be.

Leroy42

What I don't get is why the UK public, who clearly voted to 'get Brexit done' are not turning on Johnson as Brexit is clearly not done and now is pushed out a further six months.

At what point do the voters start to think they were sold a pup in 2019?

BonnieSituation

Leroy42 wrote: »

What I don't get is why the UK public, who clearly voted to 'get Brexit done' are not turning on Johnson as Brexit is clearly not done and now is pushed out a further six months.

At what point do the voters start to think they were sold a pup in 2019?

Or in 2015? or in 2016? or in 2017? Or at any point with the Tories in charge?

They never will, and covid has now given cover for the more awful effects of Brexit.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

What I don't get is why the UK public, who clearly voted to 'get Brexit done' are not turning on Johnson as Brexit is clearly not done and now is pushed out a further six months.

At what point do the voters start to think they were sold a pup in 2019?

They have been gaslight for decades by the media to follow a narrative and it is almost in-built for the masses to tug the forelock to those in superior social positions than their own. How else do they still support the royal family or can you explain the deference to Rees-Mogg who has at no point shown to have any concern for those below him but still gets elected with huge majorities? He sounds posh so he must know what he is doing.