• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

milo said:
The EU isn't a socialist institution and the Single Market certainly isn't but we'll ignore that for the moment.

The friction is caused by the need to prove that you meet those standards and the time and expense of that process.

Within the single market this is taken on trust and there is a single recognised arbitrator for settling disputes.

Outside of the single market, a company wishing to export to the EU will still have to meet those standards but will have to prove that they meet them every time that they export. They can also expect delays whilst those goods are inspected when they enter the EU.

Divergence would also increase the costs on producers because they would have to have separate processes for goods destined for the EU and UK whereas now they only need one.

Services are different because there needs to be equivalence in regulatory regimes. We currently have this within the EU. Outside and with you advocating regulatory divergence, this would be lost.

All of this wouldn't hit all sectors equally. But it is complicated and another barrier to a quick resolution and I am yet to see anything other than speculative benefits of a policy of diverging from EU standards and regulations.
Click to expand...
The burden of proof still lies with the companies selling those products and services. The only difference is that they currently prove conformity to the UK government and the EU trusts that conformity by proxy. The burden of proof is still the same.

This should be a net win for UK business as currently the UK enacts EU legislation far more strictly than many other EU countries. This is something that's very common in my industry and many of those related to it.

Whenever our MPs put forward complaints on behalf of the UK, the response from the EU is essentially a shrug along with something similar to "It's Spain/Italy/rural France, what the fudge do you expect us to do?"
 
Might be of interest to the good people of the politics thread:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...le-market-customs-union-brexit-britain-europe

Most trade agreements arise from a desire to liberalise trade – making it easier to sell goods and services into one another’s markets. Brexit will not. Brexit arose from key political, rather than trade, objectives: to have control over our borders, to have sovereignty over our laws, not to submit to the European court of justice (ECJ), and not to pay money into the European budget. When negotiations start it will be the first time countries seek a trade agreement with the clear understanding that they are increasing barriers between them.

I campaigned to stay in the EU, but as a democratic politician, I have to recognise that these objectives provide the benchmarks by which leave voters will judge the future trade relations we negotiate with the EU. Unless the new agreement delivers these objectives in substantial measure, we will find it difficult to justify the final result to the 52% who voted leave.

Of course we must try to retain the economic benefits of the single market when we leave the EU: some argue this means we should negotiate to stay inside the European Economic Area (EEA), which would retain the friction-free trade not only in goods but also in services, upon which the bulk of our economy is based.

However, the political price to be paid for such access is correspondingly high, and runs directly counter to the leavers’ four objectives. In the EEA, Britain would be obliged to keep the four freedoms, including the free movement of people, so no regaining control of our borders; align its regulatory regime with the EU’s – so no regaining sovereignty (in fact we would no longer have a seat at the table so there would actually be a reduction of sovereignty); follow ECJ rulings; and still pay into the EU budget.

The UK would technically not be a member of the EU, but we would in effect become a vassal state: obliged to pay into the union’s budget while having even less sovereignty than we do now – no longer able to appoint commissioners, sit on the EU council to have a say in how we determine our regulations and laws, or appoint British judges to the ECJ to adjudicate disputes. The 52% would almost certainly consider this a con.
Some have suggested we should retain membership of the customs union, the benefits of which extend to goods rather than services, and establish common import tariffs with respect to the rest of the world. But that is not possible. The only members of this union are the member states of the EU, and they alone have negotiating power.

Other countries such as Turkey have a separate customs union agreement with the EU. If we were to have a similar agreement, several things would follow: the EU’s 27 members would set the common tariffs and Britain would have no say in how they were set. We would be unable to enter into any separate bilateral free trade agreement. We would be obliged to align our regulatory regime with the EU in all areas covered by the union, without any say in the rules we had to adopt. And we would be bound by the case law of the ECJ, even though we would have no power to bring a case to the court.

As a transitional phase, a customs union agreement might be thought to have some merit. However, as an end point it is deeply unattractive. It would preclude us from making our own independent trade agreements with our five largest export markets outside the EU (the US, China, Japan, Australia and the Gulf states).

More important, were, say, the EU to negotiate an agreement with the US that was in the union’s best interests but against our own, our markets would be obliged to accept American produce with no guarantee of reciprocal access for our own goods into the US.
Turkey faces precisely such an asymmetry with Mexico, with which the EU negotiated an agreement 20 years ago. Turkey still faces a 20% tariff on its clothing goods exported to Mexico, while it imports Mexican cars on a tariff-free basis.

Labour has been right to say the government must focus on the outcomes rather than the structures. The key is not to try to fit these political and economic requirements into inappropriate existing bodies such as the EEA or the customs union, but to develop a bespoke agreement based on what both sides need.

Labour must evince a positive vision for the future of our country outside the EU. One that is consistent with the leave voters’ objectives, without sacrificing our rights and protections, as the Conservatives threaten to do. That vision must also reassure those who voted to remain that the friction-free access into the single market that we have enjoyed for so long can in large part be maintained.
 
That's very sensible. It essentially explains why soft-Brexit is actually EU-max, and why Labour's position has to be so close to the Tories (bar a few split hairs about safeguards on future workers' rights)
 
A couple of interesting pieces that I saw yesterday

Some sensible suggestions in this backbench Tory report but zero chance of any of these being done in 20 months

https://twitter.com/x/status/889853337130192896

This tweet is by the EU's deputy chief negotiator on Brexit.

https://twitter.com/x/status/889561390578638850

Are we sick of chlorinated chicken yet? This is an interesting thread on standards in international trade.

https://twitter.com/x/status/889245650600300545

Steve Bullock has been interesting of late

https://twitter.com/x/status/889976305185284096

A snappy quote from an unnamed minister

https://twitter.com/x/status/889752532507078656
 
Gutter Boy said:
That's very sensible. It essentially explains why soft-Brexit is actually EU-max, and why Labour's position has to be so close to the Tories (bar a few split hairs about safeguards on future workers' rights)
Click to expand...

It's certainly indecipherable from the Conservative policy but it is far from sensible. Both parties are guilty of lying to the electorate by telling them that a cost free Brexit is possible, it isn't.

The timing is also puzzling. The Cabinet seem to have finally realised that we do not have enough time to prepare for a hard Brexit and that a lengthy transition period will be required. The EU have made it clear that they are not interested in a bespoke deal, so that leaves us with an EEA transition with some form of deal with the Customs Union. Taking options like this off the table is ideological idiocy.
 
scaramanga said:
flimflam posturing from Barnier.

Does Canada align its taxes with the EU? Does Mexico have to align workforce regulations?
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to, the EU would be able to unilaterally cancel an FTA if a country sought to undercut them.

CETA does align some Canadian and EU standards though and only provides access to Canadian goods that comply with EU standards.

Canada and Mexico do not have deeply integrated supply chains with the EU. Their trade with the EU is a fraction of ours and they were seeking a deal to increase cooperation, we are seeking to decrease it.

Large parts of our economy are unlikely to be covered by an FTA and the type of deal that you are talking about would severely damage agriculture and services.

The deeper our future relationship with the EU the closer we will need to be aligned. The less aligned we are, the less trade we will do with them. If we are going to pursue this route, we need to know where this shortfall is going to be made up and how long it will take us to get there.
 
This to me largely sums up the EU. Unable to relinquish any of their grip on power, arrogance in their belief their rights are superior to anyone else's, and a Brazil-like self-propagating bureaucratic monstrouserty. Basically one of the (less important of the) seven EU institutions threatening to veto Brexit if ECJ isn't still allowed to overrule democracy after the secession.


“To be precise, the European Parliament will remain vigilant regarding citizens’ rights and will continue to push for full rights for EU citizens in the UK as well as UK citizens in the EU. It is a core mission of the European project to protect, not to diminish, the fundamental rights of all citizens."

“The European Parliament specifically seeks to fully safeguard the rights concerning family reunion, comprehensive healthcare, voting rights in local elections, the transferability of (social) rights, and the rules governing permanent residence (including the right to leave the UK without losing this status). Simultaneously, we seek to avoid an administrative burden for citizens and want proposals which are intrusive to people’s privacy off the table, e.g. proposed systematic criminal checks.”

“Last but not least, the European Parliament wants the Withdrawal Agreement to be directly enforceable and to include a mechanism in which the European Court of Justice can play its full role.”

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/...-verhofstadt-and-the-ep-brexit-steering-group
 
milo said:
It's certainly indecipherable from the Conservative policy but it is far from sensible. Both parties are guilty of lying to the electorate by telling them that a cost free Brexit is possible, it isn't.

The timing is also puzzling. The Cabinet seem to have finally realised that we do not have enough time to prepare for a hard Brexit and that a lengthy transition period will be required. The EU have made it clear that they are not interested in a bespoke deal, so that leaves us with an EEA transition with some form of deal with the Customs Union. Taking options like this off the table is ideological idiocy.
Click to expand...

But equally on timing there are big shows of trade talks with the US, Australia and New Zealand (talking about March 2019, not 2022), while the German car manufacturers are heavily lobbying Merkel and making eyes at the UK government (BMW yesterday).
 
Gutter Boy said:
It essentially explains why soft-Brexit is actually EU-max,
Click to expand...


This was explained during the vote by Remain, unless I remember incorrectly the mainstream Brexit position was continued membership of the single market, it was only after that the position has moved to HARD BREXIT.

Will of the people etc
 
milo said:
It doesn't need to, the EU would be able to unilaterally cancel an FTA if a country sought to undercut them.
Click to expand...
But they would be unlikely to do so, because a FTA helps both sides.

milo said:
CETA does align some Canadian and EU standards though and only provides access to Canadian goods that comply with EU standards.
Click to expand...
I've said from the start that anything we sell to a market must be of that market's standards, that's just common sense. That doesn't mean we can't undercut though - especially if we're able to drop all the other non-related regulation that they will keep applying.

milo said:
Canada and Mexico do not have deeply integrated supply chains with the EU. Their trade with the EU is a fraction of ours and they were seeking a deal to increase cooperation, we are seeking to decrease it.
Click to expand...
And yet somehow they survive without the grace of the mighty EU taking pity on them and allowing them to join their silly little socialist experiment.

milo said:
Large parts of our economy are unlikely to be covered by an FTA and the type of deal that you are talking about would severely damage agriculture and services.
Click to expand...
Agriculture has to suffer - it's not competitive and needs to realign with the rest of the world. We can't prop up inefficient sectors forever.

As for everything else, I've broken down the saving based on worst case scenario (WTO) in previous threads, and there are £Bns left over for the government to pay any EU country that wants to brass plate service sectors into the EU.

milo said:
The deeper our future relationship with the EU the closer we will need to be aligned. The less aligned we are, the less trade we will do with them. If we are going to pursue this route, we need to know where this shortfall is going to be made up and how long it will take us to get there.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine we'd start very closely aligned because we currently are. Over time we would reduce that compliance (if the govt has any sense) and increase trade elsewhere. It's not just selling elsewhere that will help the country, it's reduced input costs too.

When the EU eventually implodes we will be very well placed to take advantage and quickly rebuild trade.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
r-u-s-x said:
This was explained during the vote by Remain, unless I remember incorrectly the mainstream Brexit position was continued membership of the single market, it was only after that the position has moved to HARD BREXIT.

Will of the people etc
Click to expand...

The good thing is that a soft-Brexit in a transition deal will be so unpalatable to all sides, that it won't last long. The howls from the press and temptation to play away with the RotW will become too overpowering
 
Gutter Boy said:
The good thing is that a soft-Brexit in a transition deal will be so unpalatable to all sides, that it won't last long. The howls from the press and temptation to play away with the RotW will become too overpowering
Click to expand...

Am I remembering incorrectly or was remaining in the single market the main Brexit position and Remain told them that meant abiding by EU rules without influencing them. This was what most were voting on so we have to abide by it because the will of the people is key.
 
So did jezza lie regarding student debt?

He is a cheeky chappy, a slightly hairer Clegg. That said I do like Corbyn, apart from the whole Arsenal thing.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
So did jezza lie regarding student debt?

He is a cheeky chappy, a slightly hairer Clegg. That said I do like Corbyn, apart from the whole Arsenal thing.
Click to expand...
I have discussed this earlier on in the thread - if you can show me where he said he would wipe out all historic debt I will stand corrected.

The manifesto they said they would abolish tutition fees not historical debts.

this is my view on what happened:

1). did an interview (with MNE) where he said it was not fair that others had accumulated the debt and would look into helping them.
2). Papers picked it up and said he had promised to wipe debt to use it as a stick to attack him with it - Corbyns unaffordable plan to remove Student Fees
3). Papers then attack him as lying when he comes out and makes it clear he is not getting rid of historical debt.

In my opinion it is the press that first made up the policy to attack him and then used the fact he didn't offer the policy to attack him.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Am I remembering incorrectly or was remaining in the single market the main Brexit position and Remain told them that meant abiding by EU rules without influencing them. This was what most were voting on so we have to abide by it because the will of the people is key.
Click to expand...

Perhaps very early on/historically, but the 'access to not membership of' line was quite clear by the final weeks of the campaign through May/June.

I think it was sharpened by the EU diktat that membership wasn't possible without freedom of movement (which is ideological, not practical; and fair enough, it's their superstate).
 
r-u-s-x said:
I have discussed this earlier on in the thread - if you can show me where he said he would wipe out all historic debt I will stand corrected.

The manifesto they said they would abolish tutition fees not historical debts.

this is my view on what happened:

1). did an interview (with MNE) where he said it was not fair that others had accumulated the debt and would look into helping them.
2). Papers picked it up and said he had promised to wipe debt to use it as a stick to attack him with it - Corbyns unaffordable plan to remove Student Fees
3). Papers then attack him as lying when he comes out and makes it clear he is not getting rid of historical debt.

In my opinion it is the press that first made up the policy to attack him and then used the fact he didn't offer the policy to attack him.
Click to expand...

It's what the kids (well early twentysomethings) voted for though. However naïve that was. The Papa Jezza will clear our debt message gained a lot of traction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back