Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

If the US trade deal contains a non-regression clause on labour standards, then signing the US deal will mean abandoning the idea of using of Brexit "freedoms" to roll back labour standards, which is a cherished objective of at least some brexiters.

Although very few Brexiters appear to know this, US trade deals are ultimately controlled not by the President but by Congress, and in particular by the House of Representatives. The President (and officials reporting to him) negotiates trade deals only to the extent that Congress authorises him to, and within limits set by Congress, and when he does negotiate a deal it goes back to Congress to decide whether to accept it or not.

Currently trade deals are negotiated under an authority granted in 2015, and this stipulates that the US must seek to include (among other things) a provision to the effect that the parties to the deal cannot diminish their labour standards in order to attract trade or investment.

British honey companies staring down the barrel of dual labelling now after the EU tweaked it's labelling laws for honey. Up to now the requirements aligned but the EU have updated theirs to try curb the dilution of honey with sugar syrup and passing it off as honey. Up to now you'd have seen on jars that they state "blended form a mix of EU and non EU honey" or something like that. But now the labels will have to show the % and country used to produce the honey.

Of course this is half painted as the big bad EU being out to get the UK

Incredible that they are still complaining that they now don't have a say after they chose to leave the EU. There is no requirement or incentive for the EU to act in "the best interest of British honey companies", or any British company for that matter. Their belief that it is "a problem we do not believe to be widespread in the UK" is absolutely irrelevant.

This just the tip of the iceberg, as EU regulations further evolve (which is inevitable), the UK will either have to match them or lose out on trade. All this was pointed out before they left, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

The key question is why the UK would have any issue agreeing to such a clause.

The only reason is that the UK would either like to reduce the laws in the future or they see accepting such a clause as a loss of sovereignty and that is unacceptable.

It seems avoiding UK-produced food items as much as possible is definitely the way to go, they can eat muck if they want but shouldn't be exporting it.

More proof that Brexiters are actually just idiots, liars or both.

So the daily express complains when the UK which decided on its own to leave the EU, is left out of an EU wide plan ? Jesus is so stupid, as if the EU had included the UK they’d be giving out. The UK as a country voted to leave, and as far as I’m concerned they should stop giving out. They got what they wanted.

Who said Brexit had no benefits?

Can't believe that the government's own website are carrying this 'news'

In the last few weeks, I've heard Every. Single. Reason. Why. the pint wine bottles probably won't happen.

See, the 750ml standard is used throughout the world, even in the US. There's no advantage to selling wine by the pint. Literally none. You'd have to manufacture those wine bottles. That's another cost. And then, you could only sell them inside the UK.

There's almost certainly some sort of niche home market for it which someone will take on. Gaudy labelling with A Proper British Pint of Wine (small letters 'product of France'). Sell it at full 750ml price to the coronation/jubilee/wedding/birth flag waver types.

The irony is that selling still wine in pint containers is already legal in the UK. But nobody sells it because nobody wants to buy it. There was only ever a market for sparking wine in pint bottles; it was only ever a small market; and it more or less died on its arse in the 1960s. It was still being produced into the 1970s but the market was tiny.

The change just announced will allow the selling of any unfortified wine in pint containers, but the only change will be the effect on sparkling wine.

If nobody has wanted still wine in pint containers, it seems unlikely that there'll be a huge demand for sparkling wine in pint containers. Sparkling wine has to be bottled at source, and the French and Italian producers, even those who used to produce pint bottles in the 50s and 60s — have made it fairly clear that they will not be retooling their production lines to meet a demand that doesn't appear to exist. English producers of sparkling wine — yes, there are some — might be motivated to offer pint bottles, but they'll be novelty items.

Isn't Erasmus one of the projects the UK was perfectly entitled to remain a member of ?

I knew that US gallons were different to British gallons but didn't realise that was also the case for pints.

Bad enough that the units aren't metric but add this sort of confusion and it's just baffling that anyone would want to use it.

It is being said because nobody thinks it can't be done, or even that it won't be done. But that it was A) always possible and B) even if it wasn't possible it is hardly worth shouting about.

Of course, there will be plenty of people that will buy British wine in pint bottles to prove to themselves that Brexit was indeed worth it.

Guaranteed that someone will knock out some Sussex sparkling - the one they always bitch about not being allowed call Champagne - in pint bottles this coming summer; and that'll probably be the end of it.