A101
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 9:26 am

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Exactly, just goes on to show hoe rediculous the whole Brexit idea is in this dat and age of interwoven production lines.


Really what’s that got to do with Brexit, just goes to show you don’t need to be a member of the EU to trade with the EU. Out of the four countries listed Germany, Singapore, China and Malaysia you only have a trade agreement with Singapore


If you do not know it by now, *sight*.



Care to expand on the comment how Brexit hence the UK leaving the EU will effect trade in the long term with non EU members?
 
JJJ
Posts: 3477
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 9:30 am

A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:

Your post comes across that its a a major revelation, we are currently part of the EU and have been for quite sometime and have a pretty good understanding of how the union customs code works even importing into the EU from third nations work even those the do not have standards alignment, as I said no big revelation


Remind me again who was saying the whole time that a border between the UK and the EU was not necessary?

Hint: not the EU.



There is a vast difference between wanting to keep the Irish border as frictionless as possible and a border that is not necessary, you seem to think the border is frictionless now its electronic for Vat and Excise. can you show were someone from the UK has said any form of border controls was not necessary?


We're speaking about standards. The UK was simultaneously claiming they were free to set their own standards and at the same time keeping the border frictionless (using your term).

You can have one or the other, but not both.

If UK standards differ, certification and verification systems will be in place, at a high cost for the British exporter (just like EU firms now face the same burden for export to, say, the US).
 
LJ
Posts: 4992
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 10:01 am

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:

Remind me again who was saying the whole time that a border between the UK and the EU was not necessary?

Hint: not the EU.



There is a vast difference between wanting to keep the Irish border as frictionless as possible and a border that is not necessary, you seem to think the border is frictionless now its electronic for Vat and Excise. can you show were someone from the UK has said any form of border controls was not necessary?


We're speaking about standards. The UK was simultaneously claiming they were free to set their own standards and at the same time keeping the border frictionless (using your term).


To be honest, he doesn't say frictionless anymore but "as frictionless as possible". Good to see we can agree on something (despite the fact that it means there can be a border in certain circumstances). Now we can debate what the level of friction we're getting (though that will depend on what the trade treaty will look like).

A101 wrote:
There is a vast difference between wanting to keep the Irish border as frictionless as possible and a border that is not necessary, you seem to think the border is frictionless now its electronic for Vat and Excise. can you show were someone from the UK has said any form of border controls was not necessary?
Last edited by LJ on Fri Dec 27, 2019 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10897
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 10:03 am

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:

Really what’s that got to do with Brexit, just goes to show you don’t need to be a member of the EU to trade with the EU. Out of the four countries listed Germany, Singapore, China and Malaysia you only have a trade agreement with Singapore


If you do not know it by now, *sight*.



Care to expand on the comment how Brexit hence the UK leaving the EU will effect trade in the long term with non EU members?


It will affect negatively trade with non-EU member UK.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
A101
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:03 pm

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:

Remind me again who was saying the whole time that a border between the UK and the EU was not necessary?

Hint: not the EU.



There is a vast difference between wanting to keep the Irish border as frictionless as possible and a border that is not necessary, you seem to think the border is frictionless now its electronic for Vat and Excise. can you show were someone from the UK has said any form of border controls was not necessary?


We're speaking about standards. The UK was simultaneously claiming they were free to set their own standards and at the same time keeping the border frictionless (using your term).

You can have one or the other, but not both.

If UK standards differ, certification and verification systems will be in place, at a high cost for the British exporter (just like EU firms now face the same burden for export to, say, the US).


Well if you look back to the original context of the conversation it was the divergence of regulatory controls of the UK and the possibility of non-compliant goods entering the EU illegally by Aesma. But you have altered the conversation to the Irish border and are claiming that the UK said we are free to set their own standards and at the same time keeping the border frictionless and you are insisting that goods must be checked if the if the UK dose not blindly sign up to regulatory alignment under EU law and ECJ compliance; please show were someone said we were free to set our own standards and keep the border frictionless without the consent of the EU.

The Irish border problems come down to being used as a bargaining chip for the EU, but Regulatory alignment does not necessarily mean identical rules but it must result in the same outcome. Now you’re post is under the illusion when the UK describes the border as frictionless that there is no administrative burden or checks which is plainly wrong (and I actually said frictionless as possible) and as I pointed out previously no internal border in the EU is frictionless there also is an administrative burden and there are targeted checks on Intra-EU trade to satisfy member state obligations to the EU not much different from imports from non-members.

The position of the UK was we would like to see the border to become electronic and if checks were needed, they would be carried out away from the border either at the senders or receiver’s location. Under CTA and the Belfast agreement there was always going to be North-South cooperation in making available what landed in NI, as at the end of the day it was always intended that this would only apply to the Irish border and would have to be agreed to by both the EU/UK.

As to additional cost of certification and verification those cost is still part of any FTA with the EU even CETA has those and are part of the Conformity Assessment and the EU has many MRA with non-member countries which pass on the cost of conformity assessment.
 
A101
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:06 pm

LJ wrote:
JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:


There is a vast difference between wanting to keep the Irish border as frictionless as possible and a border that is not necessary, you seem to think the border is frictionless now its electronic for Vat and Excise. can you show were someone from the UK has said any form of border controls was not necessary?


We're speaking about standards. The UK was simultaneously claiming they were free to set their own standards and at the same time keeping the border frictionless (using your term).


To be honest, he doesn't say frictionless anymore but "as frictionless as possible". Good to see we can agree on something (despite the fact that it means there can be a border in certain circumstances). Now we can debate what the level of friction we're getting (though that will depend on what the trade treaty will look like).

A101 wrote:
There is a vast difference between wanting to keep the Irish border as frictionless as possible and a border that is not necessary, you seem to think the border is frictionless now its electronic for Vat and Excise. can you show were someone from the UK has said any form of border controls was not necessary?


And I have always been open about an electronic border too :D
 
A101
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:36 pm

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

If you do not know it by now, *sight*.



Care to expand on the comment how Brexit hence the UK leaving the EU will effect trade in the long term with non EU members?


It will affect negatively trade with non-EU member UK.


How will trade be affected when dealing with non EU members who do not have a Free Trade Agreement with the EU in the short term we have MRA with a number of countries until formal talks have taken place for an FTA
 
LJ
Posts: 4992
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:39 pm

Ignoring the headline of the article which is interesting from a political point of view, the most interesting part is about what will happen mid-January (at the bottom of the article). It seems that the UK is hosting the first round of the negotiations in which the EU has a teaser for the UK financial sector (just for those who aren't into finance, should the EU decide that the UK oversight is not equal to the EU then it would mean that investing in British securities would become unattractive for financial institutions in the Euro area).

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/27/eu-chief-questions-feasibility-of-boris-johnson-brexit-talks-time-limit
 
JJJ
Posts: 3477
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:49 pm

A101 wrote:
LJ wrote:
JJJ wrote:

We're speaking about standards. The UK was simultaneously claiming they were free to set their own standards and at the same time keeping the border frictionless (using your term).


To be honest, he doesn't say frictionless anymore but "as frictionless as possible". Good to see we can agree on something (despite the fact that it means there can be a border in certain circumstances). Now we can debate what the level of friction we're getting (though that will depend on what the trade treaty will look like).

A101 wrote:
There is a vast difference between wanting to keep the Irish border as frictionless as possible and a border that is not necessary, you seem to think the border is frictionless now its electronic for Vat and Excise. can you show were someone from the UK has said any form of border controls was not necessary?


And I have always been open about an electronic border too :D


If standards differ an electronic border won't suffice. And even the same standards don't guarantee it (like the Sweden-Norway border which is probably the smartest in the world at the moment still faces challenges because they still haven't figured out how to connect both countries customs, etc. systems).

And the further UK standards and policies differ, the stronger the border will need to become. Purely because the threat from noncompliant products will be higher, so checks will have to be upped accordingly.
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 918
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:58 pm

Arion640 wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

If we compare your reaction here with the reaction of Timmermans, we can clearly see what we have known from the beginning Brexiteers are not well known for reaching out to the EU. Timmermans has reached out, he didn't need to do it, but did it anyway and graciously if I may add.


There is clearly a motive for it.

Stirring up the no hopers to fight to rejoin.


The UK would never accept Schengen or the Euro so we’d never rejoin.


I think there would be more chance of others leaving the EU, than the UK ever rejoining.

UK citizens have overwhelmingly been fiercely against joining the Euro for over 20 years and joining Schengen would make the UK far less secure.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10897
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 1:07 pm

noviorbis77 wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:

There is clearly a motive for it.

Stirring up the no hopers to fight to rejoin.


The UK would never accept Schengen or the Euro so we’d never rejoin.


I think there would be more chance of others leaving the EU, than the UK ever rejoining.

UK citizens have overwhelmingly been fiercely against joining the Euro for over 20 years and joining Schengen would make the UK far less secure.


We can all agree that leaving the EU is the biggest gamble the UK has taken in the past say 100plus years. So we know that British citizens aren't shy of taking risks. 8-)

BTW I think that Scotland joining the EU has much more chance than others leaving the EU :lol:
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
A101
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 1:56 pm

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
LJ wrote:

To be honest, he doesn't say frictionless anymore but "as frictionless as possible". Good to see we can agree on something (despite the fact that it means there can be a border in certain circumstances). Now we can debate what the level of friction we're getting (though that will depend on what the trade treaty will look like).



And I have always been open about an electronic border too :D


If standards differ an electronic border won't suffice. And even the same standards don't guarantee it (like the Sweden-Norway border which is probably the smartest in the world at the moment still faces challenges because they still haven't figured out how to connect both countries customs, etc. systems).

And the further UK standards and policies differ, the stronger the border will need to become. Purely because the threat from noncompliant products will be higher, so checks will have to be upped accordingly.



What the UK talked about and always was being talked about was the NI being in equivalence in respect to goods imported to NI, it was hoped that the regulatory equivalence on agrifood, where the UK/ EU agree to achieve the same outcome as EU law, but with flexibility in relation to the method for achieving this, after all the EC do recognise that regulations of a third country in a specific area that achieves the same regulatory objectives even if they do not follow the exact same specifications as EU law. As a result, if a product is compliant there, it need not go through extra checks and certification for compliance in the EU, That is what the UK was trying to achieve in respects to NI but the EU only wanted to recognise that NI remains in the EU sphere of influence, in other words NI remains a vassal state of the EU, clearly the whole question of the Irish border was not what would be in the best interests of NI but in the interests of the ROI


A case in point; Australia is not in regulatory alignment with the EU and domestic agrifoods are vastly different standards to the EU, but the regulations in respect to importation of organic agrifood achieves the same outcome to EU law, but it also recognise equivalence of Australian regulatory controls but fails to do the same with NI.


COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1235/2008
of 8 December 2008;
Laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries.........

(4)
Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, India, Israel, New Zealand and Switzerland were previously listed as third countries from which imported products could be marketed in the Community as organic, under Commission Regulation (EC) No 345/2008 of 17 April 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing the arrangements for imports from third countries provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (2). The Commission has re-examined the situation of those countries according to the criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, taking into consideration the production rules applied and the experience gained with the import of organic products from these third countries as previously listed under Article 11(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/2091. On this basis it is concluded that the conditions for inclusion of Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, India, Israel, and New Zealand in the list of third countries for equivalency according to Article 33(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 are fulfilled.





https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 35&from=EN
 
JJJ
Posts: 3477
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:16 pm

A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:

And I have always been open about an electronic border too :D


If standards differ an electronic border won't suffice. And even the same standards don't guarantee it (like the Sweden-Norway border which is probably the smartest in the world at the moment still faces challenges because they still haven't figured out how to connect both countries customs, etc. systems).

And the further UK standards and policies differ, the stronger the border will need to become. Purely because the threat from noncompliant products will be higher, so checks will have to be upped accordingly.



What the UK talked about and always was being talked about was the NI being in equivalence in respect to goods imported to NI, it was hoped that the regulatory equivalence on agrifood, where the UK/ EU agree to achieve the same outcome as EU law, but with flexibility in relation to the method for achieving this, after all the EC do recognise that regulations of a third country in a specific area that achieves the same regulatory objectives even if they do not follow the exact same specifications as EU law. As a result, if a product is compliant there, it need not go through extra checks and certification for compliance in the EU, That is what the UK was trying to achieve in respects to NI but the EU only wanted to recognise that NI remains in the EU sphere of influence, in other words NI remains a vassal state of the EU, clearly the whole question of the Irish border was not what would be in the best interests of NI but in the interests of the ROI


A case in point; Australia is not in regulatory alignment with the EU but the regulations in respect to importation of organic agrifood achieves the same outcome to EU law, but it also recognise equivalence of Australian regulatory controls but fails to do the same with NI.


COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1235/2008
of 8 December 2008;
Laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries.........

(4)
Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, India, Israel, New Zealand and Switzerland were previously listed as third countries from which imported products could be marketed in the Community as organic, under Commission Regulation (EC) No 345/2008 of 17 April 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing the arrangements for imports from third countries provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (2). The Commission has re-examined the situation of those countries according to the criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, taking into consideration the production rules applied and the experience gained with the import of organic products from these third countries as previously listed under Article 11(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/2091. On this basis it is concluded that the conditions for inclusion of Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, India, Israel, and New Zealand in the list of third countries for equivalency according to Article 33(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 are fulfilled.





https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 35&from=EN


Your example is useless. The only thing it does is guarantee that say, a slab of organic meat, fruit, etc. from Australia will automatically be able to be labelled organic in the EU...... as long as the meat follows all the rest of the requirements and certifications needed for import to the EU.

It is no substitute for the regular process and quotas for meat, fruit, etc. For example when it comes to meat:

https://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/f ... eef-quotas

European Union high-quality beef and grain-fed beef quotas
The Department of Agriculture manages 2 European Union (EU) beef quotas, which were put in place by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT):

High-quality beef (HQB)
Grain-fed beef.
Australian exporters can export specific quantities of eligible products to the EU at reduced or zero tariff rates through these quotas.

Both quotas operate on an Australian financial year basis: 1 July to 30 June.
To be eligible to receive an EU HQB or a grain-fed quota certificate, an exporter must hold a meat export licence issued under section 10 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 (AMLI Act).
HQB
Currently 7,150 tonnes of HQB can be exported to the EU each year at an ad valorem tariff rate of 20% (ad valorem is levying of customs duties in proportion to the estimated value of the goods).

Demand for access to this quota traditionally exceeds the amount of quota available and therefore the department implements an annual allocation process.

Key dates to remember

15 February—Deadline for declaration of unused quota entitlement
16 May—Deadline for HQB exporters to apply for a quota allocation
1 July—New quota year commences
30 June—Quota year ends

Grain-fed beef
The 45,000-tonne grain-fed beef quota can be accessed by Australia, the US, Canada, New Zealand, Uruguay and Argentina. As such, the zero tariff grain-fed quota is not allocated but available on a first-come, first-served (FCFS) basis. This quota is managed by the EU and access to it cannot be guaranteed even with an Australian Government quota certificate.


And who issues that certificate? EUCAS, which is fully paid for by the Australian DEFRA equivalent.

https://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/c ... er-3/eucas
European Union Cattle Accreditation Scheme EUCAS
​​​​​The European Union Cattle Accreditation Scheme (EUCAS) is a national animal production scheme that guarantees full traceability of all animals through the National Livestock Identification System (NLIS), linking individual animal identification to a central database. EUCAS allows Australia to meet the European Union (EU) market requirements for beef by segregating cattle that have never been treated with hormonal growth promotants (HGPs) at any time.

EUCAS accredited farms are audited on both a random and targeted basis. EUCAS feedlots and saleyard are audited annually and their ongoing accreditation depends on a successful audit. If a farm, feedlot or saleyard are found not to be complying with the requirements of the scheme the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources​ reserves the right to revoke their accreditation.


So basically if you want to export meat to the EU from a country that allows hormone-treated cattle you will face a tough, time-consuming and expensive process for registration.

That's what happens when standards differ.
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 918
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:21 pm

Dutchy wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
Arion640 wrote:

The UK would never accept Schengen or the Euro so we’d never rejoin.


I think there would be more chance of others leaving the EU, than the UK ever rejoining.

UK citizens have overwhelmingly been fiercely against joining the Euro for over 20 years and joining Schengen would make the UK far less secure.


We can all agree that leaving the EU is the biggest gamble the UK has taken in the past say 100plus years. So we know that British citizens aren't shy of taking risks. 8-)

BTW I think that Scotland joining the EU has much more chance than others leaving the EU :lol:


Scotland would need to leave the UK. This current government have said no to another independence referendum and in any event, there is no evidence that the Scots would vote to leave the union.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9777
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:32 pm

It is interesting how powerful politics is in relation to trade discussions, now that the UK has a government who has support in parliament and they have passed a WA bill, the discussion on this site in relation to Brexit has become "more civil".

Now the discourse will be more constructive.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10897
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:33 pm

noviorbis77 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:

I think there would be more chance of others leaving the EU, than the UK ever rejoining.

UK citizens have overwhelmingly been fiercely against joining the Euro for over 20 years and joining Schengen would make the UK far less secure.


We can all agree that leaving the EU is the biggest gamble the UK has taken in the past say 100plus years. So we know that British citizens aren't shy of taking risks. 8-)

BTW I think that Scotland joining the EU has much more chance than others leaving the EU :lol:


Scotland would need to leave the UK. This current government have said no to another independence referendum and in any event, there is no evidence that the Scots would vote to leave the union.


There is no evidence of others leaving either..............

BTW there is a lot of evidence that the Scots might vote to leave in the future. You can't deny that, now can you. ;)

And remember it is because you wanted to leave the EU, you took the risk that Scotland wanted to leave because they overwhelmingly didn't, giving them another reason to do so. Furthermore, Scotland is more leftish than England and thus Whitehall. With all the ambition of becoming more like Singapore or America, you will see more unease with the Scotts. But hey, it was your choice, so your consequences. You can't say you haven't been warned that this might happen. You, and your fellow Brexitremist, think it is far more important to leave the EU, then to preserve UK unity. Not the choice I would make, but you are free to make that choice, but don't complain if the downside will become visible.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Arion640
Posts: 2835
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:40 pm

Dutchy wrote:
noviorbis77 wrote:
Arion640 wrote:

The UK would never accept Schengen or the Euro so we’d never rejoin.


I think there would be more chance of others leaving the EU, than the UK ever rejoining.

UK citizens have overwhelmingly been fiercely against joining the Euro for over 20 years and joining Schengen would make the UK far less secure.


We can all agree that leaving the EU is the biggest gamble the UK has taken in the past say 100plus years. So we know that British citizens aren't shy of taking risks. 8-)

BTW I think that Scotland joining the EU has much more chance than others leaving the EU :lol:


Scotland would be forced to join the Euro upon joining the EU , and currently they don’t meet the economic criteria for the Europe. So that means no membership.

They’d also be forced to accept Schengen which means a hard border with England.

It just isn’t going to happen!
1973-2020
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3592
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:59 pm

Arion640 wrote:
Scotland would be forced to join the Euro upon joining the EU , and currently they don’t meet the economic criteria for the Europe. So that means no membership.


Not immediately. Eventually they would have to.


Arion640 wrote:
They’d also be forced to accept Schengen which means a hard border with England.


In all likelihood, if they go ahead with independence, a hard border would be erected regardless of their relationship with the EU. Given how nasty the English Tories will undoubtedly be about it, they may even want it as quickly as possible.


Arion640 wrote:
It just isn’t going to happen!


For someone who is all in favour of breaking up unions, I am bewildered as to why you are so against a Scottish Exit. IMHO, it is far more likely to happen than the Netherlands breaking up, so...
 
A101
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 3:21 pm

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:

If standards differ an electronic border won't suffice. And even the same standards don't guarantee it (like the Sweden-Norway border which is probably the smartest in the world at the moment still faces challenges because they still haven't figured out how to connect both countries customs, etc. systems).

And the further UK standards and policies differ, the stronger the border will need to become. Purely because the threat from noncompliant products will be higher, so checks will have to be upped accordingly.



What the UK talked about and always was being talked about was the NI being in equivalence in respect to goods imported to NI, it was hoped that the regulatory equivalence on agrifood, where the UK/ EU agree to achieve the same outcome as EU law, but with flexibility in relation to the method for achieving this, after all the EC do recognise that regulations of a third country in a specific area that achieves the same regulatory objectives even if they do not follow the exact same specifications as EU law. As a result, if a product is compliant there, it need not go through extra checks and certification for compliance in the EU, That is what the UK was trying to achieve in respects to NI but the EU only wanted to recognise that NI remains in the EU sphere of influence, in other words NI remains a vassal state of the EU, clearly the whole question of the Irish border was not what would be in the best interests of NI but in the interests of the ROI


A case in point; Australia is not in regulatory alignment with the EU but the regulations in respect to importation of organic agrifood achieves the same outcome to EU law, but it also recognise equivalence of Australian regulatory controls but fails to do the same with NI.


COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1235/2008
of 8 December 2008;
Laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries.........

(4)
Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, India, Israel, New Zealand and Switzerland were previously listed as third countries from which imported products could be marketed in the Community as organic, under Commission Regulation (EC) No 345/2008 of 17 April 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing the arrangements for imports from third countries provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (2). The Commission has re-examined the situation of those countries according to the criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, taking into consideration the production rules applied and the experience gained with the import of organic products from these third countries as previously listed under Article 11(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/2091. On this basis it is concluded that the conditions for inclusion of Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, India, Israel, and New Zealand in the list of third countries for equivalency according to Article 33(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 are fulfilled.





https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 35&from=EN


Your example is useless. The only thing it does is guarantee that say, a slab of organic meat, fruit, etc. from Australia will automatically be able to be labelled organic in the EU...... as long as the meat follows all the rest of the requirements and certifications needed for import to the EU.

It is no substitute for the regular process and quotas for meat, fruit, etc. For example when it comes to meat:

https://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/f ... eef-quotas

European Union high-quality beef and grain-fed beef quotas
The Department of Agriculture manages 2 European Union (EU) beef quotas, which were put in place by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT):

High-quality beef (HQB)
Grain-fed beef.
Australian exporters can export specific quantities of eligible products to the EU at reduced or zero tariff rates through these quotas.

Both quotas operate on an Australian financial year basis: 1 July to 30 June.
To be eligible to receive an EU HQB or a grain-fed quota certificate, an exporter must hold a meat export licence issued under section 10 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 (AMLI Act).
HQB
Currently 7,150 tonnes of HQB can be exported to the EU each year at an ad valorem tariff rate of 20% (ad valorem is levying of customs duties in proportion to the estimated value of the goods).

Demand for access to this quota traditionally exceeds the amount of quota available and therefore the department implements an annual allocation process.

Key dates to remember

15 February—Deadline for declaration of unused quota entitlement
16 May—Deadline for HQB exporters to apply for a quota allocation
1 July—New quota year commences
30 June—Quota year ends

Grain-fed beef
The 45,000-tonne grain-fed beef quota can be accessed by Australia, the US, Canada, New Zealand, Uruguay and Argentina. As such, the zero tariff grain-fed quota is not allocated but available on a first-come, first-served (FCFS) basis. This quota is managed by the EU and access to it cannot be guaranteed even with an Australian Government quota certificate.


And who issues that certificate? EUCAS, which is fully paid for by the Australian DEFRA equivalent.

https://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/c ... er-3/eucas
European Union Cattle Accreditation Scheme EUCAS
​​​​​The European Union Cattle Accreditation Scheme (EUCAS) is a national animal production scheme that guarantees full traceability of all animals through the National Livestock Identification System (NLIS), linking individual animal identification to a central database. EUCAS allows Australia to meet the European Union (EU) market requirements for beef by segregating cattle that have never been treated with hormonal growth promotants (HGPs) at any time.

EUCAS accredited farms are audited on both a random and targeted basis. EUCAS feedlots and saleyard are audited annually and their ongoing accreditation depends on a successful audit. If a farm, feedlot or saleyard are found not to be complying with the requirements of the scheme the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources​ reserves the right to revoke their accreditation.


So basically if you want to export meat to the EU from a country that allows hormone-treated cattle you will face a tough, time-consuming and expensive process for registration.

That's what happens when standards differ.



I stand by what I have said is correct Australia still has not committed to regulatory harmonisation , I've seen all this ages ago as I posted this on the forum elsewhere. EUCAS is no different from what the Canadians have to do under CETA Conformity Assessments in fact having a FTA is no guarantee that exports to the EU will increase the Canadians are finding out the hard way.

The only difference between Canada and Australia is Ca has CETA to deal with the EU and Au have regulatory equivalence and the only difference even with UK being in the EU all those same checks were had at port of Larne along with Health certificate guarantees before and after arrival into NI


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ ... -1.5312594
 
Arion640
Posts: 2835
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 3:25 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
Scotland would be forced to join the Euro upon joining the EU , and currently they don’t meet the economic criteria for the Europe. So that means no membership.


Not immediately. Eventually they would have to.


Arion640 wrote:
They’d also be forced to accept Schengen which means a hard border with England.


In all likelihood, if they go ahead with independence, a hard border would be erected regardless of their relationship with the EU. Given how nasty the English Tories will undoubtedly be about it, they may even want it as quickly as possible.


Arion640 wrote:
It just isn’t going to happen!


For someone who is all in favour of breaking up unions, I am bewildered as to why you are so against a Scottish Exit. IMHO, it is far more likely to happen than the Netherlands breaking up, so...


A. They’d have to join the Exchange rate mechanism first with their current currency. Which is the pound. As the pound is controlled from London, it’s just a non starter. And if Scotland left the UK, London would have no obligation to let them carry on using the pound after a period of time anyway, so they would be going on to the Euro.

B. A huge amount of business is done between England and Scotland. Just won’t happen. You’d also see a huge amount of companies moving south of the border if a hard one was to be erected.

C. I’m not re running the EU referendum debate, but we both know the EU with it’s 27 countries different from the Scotland/England relationship.
1973-2020
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3559
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 4:05 pm

Actually if NI and Scotland were to largely remain EU, companies could take advantage. EU leaning products there, US and the rest of the world in England. There is going to be a lot of awkwardness in any event after Brexit.

And I expect that if Scotland succeeds it will be with a very loose association with NI and the ROI. This would really defang the extremists in NI (or expose them as the criminals some think they may be).
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
Arion640
Posts: 2835
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 4:11 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
Actually if NI and Scotland were to largely remain EU, companies could take advantage. EU leaning products there, US and the rest of the world in England. There is going to be a lot of awkwardness in any event after Brexit.

And I expect that if Scotland succeeds it will be with a very loose association with NI and the ROI. This would really defang the extremists in NI (or expose them as the criminals some think they may be).


They can’t have a NI/ROI relationship with England and be in the EU as that means they need to join Schengen.

They can join Schengen but that means a hard border.
1973-2020
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 10897
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 4:43 pm

Arion640 wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Actually if NI and Scotland were to largely remain EU, companies could take advantage. EU leaning products there, US and the rest of the world in England. There is going to be a lot of awkwardness in any event after Brexit.

And I expect that if Scotland succeeds it will be with a very loose association with NI and the ROI. This would really defang the extremists in NI (or expose them as the criminals some think they may be).


They can’t have a NI/ROI relationship with England and be in the EU as that means they need to join Schengen.

They can join Schengen but that means a hard border.


I am quite surprised that you now think a hard border is a problem. You wanted a hard border between Northern Ireland / Ireland because of your beloved Brexit.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Arion640
Posts: 2835
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:10 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
Actually if NI and Scotland were to largely remain EU, companies could take advantage. EU leaning products there, US and the rest of the world in England. There is going to be a lot of awkwardness in any event after Brexit.

And I expect that if Scotland succeeds it will be with a very loose association with NI and the ROI. This would really defang the extremists in NI (or expose them as the criminals some think they may be).


They can’t have a NI/ROI relationship with England and be in the EU as that means they need to join Schengen.

They can join Schengen but that means a hard border.


I am quite surprised that you now think a hard border is a problem. You wanted a hard border between Northern Ireland / Ireland because of your beloved Brexit.


No, i didn’t...

Please find me a quote on this forum where i have said that?
1973-2020
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9777
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:24 pm

Dutchy wrote:
I am quite surprised that you now think a hard border is a problem. You wanted a hard border between Northern Ireland / Ireland because of your beloved Brexit.

That does however short change the debate since all and sundry are aware that there is the small matter of the GFA, if that were not in place the issue of NI would never have been a factor in the debate.
 
JJJ
Posts: 3477
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 7:40 pm

A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:


What the UK talked about and always was being talked about was the NI being in equivalence in respect to goods imported to NI, it was hoped that the regulatory equivalence on agrifood, where the UK/ EU agree to achieve the same outcome as EU law, but with flexibility in relation to the method for achieving this, after all the EC do recognise that regulations of a third country in a specific area that achieves the same regulatory objectives even if they do not follow the exact same specifications as EU law. As a result, if a product is compliant there, it need not go through extra checks and certification for compliance in the EU, That is what the UK was trying to achieve in respects to NI but the EU only wanted to recognise that NI remains in the EU sphere of influence, in other words NI remains a vassal state of the EU, clearly the whole question of the Irish border was not what would be in the best interests of NI but in the interests of the ROI


A case in point; Australia is not in regulatory alignment with the EU but the regulations in respect to importation of organic agrifood achieves the same outcome to EU law, but it also recognise equivalence of Australian regulatory controls but fails to do the same with NI.



https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content ... 35&from=EN


Your example is useless. The only thing it does is guarantee that say, a slab of organic meat, fruit, etc. from Australia will automatically be able to be labelled organic in the EU...... as long as the meat follows all the rest of the requirements and certifications needed for import to the EU.

It is no substitute for the regular process and quotas for meat, fruit, etc. For example when it comes to meat:

https://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/f ... eef-quotas

European Union high-quality beef and grain-fed beef quotas
The Department of Agriculture manages 2 European Union (EU) beef quotas, which were put in place by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT):

High-quality beef (HQB)
Grain-fed beef.
Australian exporters can export specific quantities of eligible products to the EU at reduced or zero tariff rates through these quotas.

Both quotas operate on an Australian financial year basis: 1 July to 30 June.
To be eligible to receive an EU HQB or a grain-fed quota certificate, an exporter must hold a meat export licence issued under section 10 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 (AMLI Act).
HQB
Currently 7,150 tonnes of HQB can be exported to the EU each year at an ad valorem tariff rate of 20% (ad valorem is levying of customs duties in proportion to the estimated value of the goods).

Demand for access to this quota traditionally exceeds the amount of quota available and therefore the department implements an annual allocation process.

Key dates to remember

15 February—Deadline for declaration of unused quota entitlement
16 May—Deadline for HQB exporters to apply for a quota allocation
1 July—New quota year commences
30 June—Quota year ends

Grain-fed beef
The 45,000-tonne grain-fed beef quota can be accessed by Australia, the US, Canada, New Zealand, Uruguay and Argentina. As such, the zero tariff grain-fed quota is not allocated but available on a first-come, first-served (FCFS) basis. This quota is managed by the EU and access to it cannot be guaranteed even with an Australian Government quota certificate.


And who issues that certificate? EUCAS, which is fully paid for by the Australian DEFRA equivalent.

https://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/c ... er-3/eucas
European Union Cattle Accreditation Scheme EUCAS
​​​​​The European Union Cattle Accreditation Scheme (EUCAS) is a national animal production scheme that guarantees full traceability of all animals through the National Livestock Identification System (NLIS), linking individual animal identification to a central database. EUCAS allows Australia to meet the European Union (EU) market requirements for beef by segregating cattle that have never been treated with hormonal growth promotants (HGPs) at any time.

EUCAS accredited farms are audited on both a random and targeted basis. EUCAS feedlots and saleyard are audited annually and their ongoing accreditation depends on a successful audit. If a farm, feedlot or saleyard are found not to be complying with the requirements of the scheme the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources​ reserves the right to revoke their accreditation.


So basically if you want to export meat to the EU from a country that allows hormone-treated cattle you will face a tough, time-consuming and expensive process for registration.

That's what happens when standards differ.



I stand by what I have said is correct Australia still has not committed to regulatory harmonisation


Which is the point: no regulatory harmonisation means checks and certifications and having all your cattle separate from non-EU certified ones.

, I've seen all this ages ago as I posted this on the forum elsewhere. EUCAS is no different from what the Canadians have to do under CETA Conformity Assessments in fact having a FTA is no guarantee that exports to the EU will increase the Canadians are finding out the hard way.

The only difference between Canada and Australia is Ca has CETA to deal with the EU and Au have regulatory equivalence and the only difference even with UK being in the EU all those same checks were had at port of Larne along with Health certificate guarantees before and after arrival into NI


A health certificate is required to prove only that a certain animal or product is free from certain disease. This is something that happens in islands in many jurisdictions. It's a minor check (and usually provided for free or almost free by the relevant authority).

Proving your product meets EU, US or Japanese requirements is a whole different league as far as certifications go. Hence: EUCAS, FDA-approved procedures, etc.

Why isn't Canada exporting as much as they hoped to the EU?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ ... -1.5312594

That means those raising cattle for export in Canada must often adjust their method of production on their farms to be approved, which can be costly.

Beyond extra cost, another roadblock is that there are not enough veterinarians who are able to certify farms by EU standards.

"There is an overall lack of veterinarians in our industry and that is a problem," said Smith.

"But even the veterinarians that we have, not all of them are able to certify cattle for EU exports."

"In CETA, there is no harmonization of regulations, no harmonization of standards, said Siviere.

"European standards remain in place, Canadian standards remain in place, and that is what may have been badly gauged or poorly estimated at the outset."

This costly and complicated process of certification has caused cattle farmers to be hesitant to invest in applying to be certified for European beef shipment


There is no regulatory equivalence. And Canadian farmers know getting EU-certified is costly. So costly most just don't bother.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21502
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:53 pm

JJJ wrote:
Why isn't Canada exporting as much as they hoped to the EU?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ ... -1.5312594

"European standards remain in place, Canadian standards remain in place, and that is what may have been badly gauged or poorly estimated at the outset."

This costly and complicated process of certification has caused cattle farmers to be hesitant to invest in applying to be certified for European beef shipment


There is no regulatory equivalence. And Canadian farmers know getting EU-certified is costly. So costly most just don't bother.

And the canadian negotiators haven't "misjudged" those consequences, they just chose to set the issue aside (and thus leave their own canadian farmers to fend for themselves via difficult-to-get certifications) because this would have been a massive roadblock to getting CETA agreed at all.

There was nothing except completely changing the canadian rules and regulations (which in turn they need to remain aligned with the US at least to some degree) they could have done – and for the UK there will be a similar fork in the road when the UK ponders its first serious deviation from EU rules and regulations, because that will have similar effects.

In short: This is in fact pretty much as difficult and as full of undesirable consequences as the EU has always said, and none of this is remotely as simple and easy as the Brexit proponents have been claiming.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9777
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:31 am

JJJ wrote:
There is no regulatory equivalence. And Canadian farmers know getting EU-certified is costly. So costly most just don't bother.

So how does that affect trade between the countries and the projections both sides looked at during the negotiations?
 
A101
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:51 am

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:

Your example is useless. The only thing it does is guarantee that say, a slab of organic meat, fruit, etc. from Australia will automatically be able to be labelled organic in the EU...... as long as the meat follows all the rest of the requirements and certifications needed for import to the EU.

It is no substitute for the regular process and quotas for meat, fruit, etc. For example when it comes to meat:

https://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/f ... eef-quotas



And who issues that certificate? EUCAS, which is fully paid for by the Australian DEFRA equivalent.

https://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/c ... er-3/eucas


So basically if you want to export meat to the EU from a country that allows hormone-treated cattle you will face a tough, time-consuming and expensive process for registration.

That's what happens when standards differ.



I stand by what I have said is correct Australia still has not committed to regulatory harmonisation


Which is the point: no regulatory harmonisation means checks and certifications and having all your cattle separate from non-EU certified ones.

, I've seen all this ages ago as I posted this on the forum elsewhere. EUCAS is no different from what the Canadians have to do under CETA Conformity Assessments in fact having a FTA is no guarantee that exports to the EU will increase the Canadians are finding out the hard way.

The only difference between Canada and Australia is Ca has CETA to deal with the EU and Au have regulatory equivalence and the only difference even with UK being in the EU all those same checks were had at port of Larne along with Health certificate guarantees before and after arrival into NI


A health certificate is required to prove only that a certain animal or product is free from certain disease. This is something that happens in islands in many jurisdictions. It's a minor check (and usually provided for free or almost free by the relevant authority).

Proving your product meets EU, US or Japanese requirements is a whole different league as far as certifications go. Hence: EUCAS, FDA-approved procedures, etc.

Why isn't Canada exporting as much as they hoped to the EU?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ ... -1.5312594

That means those raising cattle for export in Canada must often adjust their method of production on their farms to be approved, which can be costly.

Beyond extra cost, another roadblock is that there are not enough veterinarians who are able to certify farms by EU standards.

"There is an overall lack of veterinarians in our industry and that is a problem," said Smith.

"But even the veterinarians that we have, not all of them are able to certify cattle for EU exports."

"In CETA, there is no harmonization of regulations, no harmonization of standards, said Siviere.

"European standards remain in place, Canadian standards remain in place, and that is what may have been badly gauged or poorly estimated at the outset."

This costly and complicated process of certification has caused cattle farmers to be hesitant to invest in applying to be certified for European beef shipment


There is no regulatory equivalence. And Canadian farmers know getting EU-certified is costly. So costly most just don't bother.



I know you are not illiterate but I am starting to wonder about your comprehension skills, I have shown you the relevant EU council regulation in respect to FSANZ/ EU regulatory equivalence for organic products and production. You seem to be under illusion that all organic production is destined for the EU.

As for EUCAS it basically is an administrative burden no different to what EU member state producers face for their own Agri production in Livestock identification and traceability, but EUCAS is dealing specifically for those who want to export to the EU and actually the Canadian situation shows the additional cost to consumer within the EU market because the consumer in the EU doesn’t have a choice in the matter
 
JJJ
Posts: 3477
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Dec 28, 2019 8:32 am

A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:


I stand by what I have said is correct Australia still has not committed to regulatory harmonisation


Which is the point: no regulatory harmonisation means checks and certifications and having all your cattle separate from non-EU certified ones.

, I've seen all this ages ago as I posted this on the forum elsewhere. EUCAS is no different from what the Canadians have to do under CETA Conformity Assessments in fact having a FTA is no guarantee that exports to the EU will increase the Canadians are finding out the hard way.

The only difference between Canada and Australia is Ca has CETA to deal with the EU and Au have regulatory equivalence and the only difference even with UK being in the EU all those same checks were had at port of Larne along with Health certificate guarantees before and after arrival into NI


A health certificate is required to prove only that a certain animal or product is free from certain disease. This is something that happens in islands in many jurisdictions. It's a minor check (and usually provided for free or almost free by the relevant authority).

Proving your product meets EU, US or Japanese requirements is a whole different league as far as certifications go. Hence: EUCAS, FDA-approved procedures, etc.

Why isn't Canada exporting as much as they hoped to the EU?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ ... -1.5312594

That means those raising cattle for export in Canada must often adjust their method of production on their farms to be approved, which can be costly.

Beyond extra cost, another roadblock is that there are not enough veterinarians who are able to certify farms by EU standards.

"There is an overall lack of veterinarians in our industry and that is a problem," said Smith.

"But even the veterinarians that we have, not all of them are able to certify cattle for EU exports."

"In CETA, there is no harmonization of regulations, no harmonization of standards, said Siviere.

"European standards remain in place, Canadian standards remain in place, and that is what may have been badly gauged or poorly estimated at the outset."

This costly and complicated process of certification has caused cattle farmers to be hesitant to invest in applying to be certified for European beef shipment


There is no regulatory equivalence. And Canadian farmers know getting EU-certified is costly. So costly most just don't bother.



I know you are not illiterate but I am starting to wonder about your comprehension skills, I have shown you the relevant EU council regulation in respect to FSANZ/ EU regulatory equivalence for organic products and production. You seem to be under illusion that all organic production is destined for the EU.


There is no HS code for organic products, and organic certification does not say anything about the eligibility of your products being admissible in any market.

The relevance of organic labelling as far as international trade goes doesn't move the needle above zero. Mostly because you still have to abide by all the other, heavier rules.
 
JJJ
Posts: 3477
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Dec 28, 2019 10:18 am

par13del wrote:
JJJ wrote:
There is no regulatory equivalence. And Canadian farmers know getting EU-certified is costly. So costly most just don't bother.

So how does that affect trade between the countries and the projections both sides looked at during the negotiations?


Too early to know. Manufactured goods are probably going as intended, agrifood is always tricky to solve because there are powerful voting blocks at play (cf Klaus' answer before).
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14572
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Dec 28, 2019 2:05 pm

Talking about NI and Scotland, a proposal to build a long bridge system between SW Scotland and NI:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnso ... 22468.html
It would cost 15 B Pounds, likely a lot more, the sea could have many ux WWII ordinance to cause difficulties, but it would provide 1000's of badly needed jobs in 2 major parts of the UK and who knows the economic and political affects, including the ROI. Likely it wouldn't be done until long after Brexit, maybe NI merged with the ROI by then.
 
Arion640
Posts: 2835
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Dec 28, 2019 2:51 pm

ltbewr wrote:
Talking about NI and Scotland, a proposal to build a long bridge system between SW Scotland and NI:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnso ... 22468.html
It would cost 15 B Pounds, likely a lot more, the sea could have many ux WWII ordinance to cause difficulties, but it would provide 1000's of badly needed jobs in 2 major parts of the UK and who knows the economic and political affects, including the ROI. Likely it wouldn't be done until long after Brexit, maybe NI merged with the ROI by then.


I think this is a good idea in theory, but costs are a little on the high side, 15Bn could fund Wales for a whole year.
1973-2020
 
olle
Posts: 1524
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Dec 28, 2019 4:47 pm

Arion640 wrote:
ltbewr wrote:
Talking about NI and Scotland, a proposal to build a long bridge system between SW Scotland and NI:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/boris-johnso ... 22468.html
It would cost 15 B Pounds, likely a lot more, the sea could have many ux WWII ordinance to cause difficulties, but it would provide 1000's of badly needed jobs in 2 major parts of the UK and who knows the economic and political affects, including the ROI. Likely it wouldn't be done until long after Brexit, maybe NI merged with the ROI by then.


I think this is a good idea in theory, but costs are a little on the high side, 15Bn could fund Wales for a whole year.



Boris seems to expect it to be finanenced by EU.....
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9777
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Dec 28, 2019 6:34 pm

So how much trade and travel presently takes place between Scotland and NI, yes there will be jobs created to build the bridge, but the reason for building the bridge should be it use and economic impact ob the regions, would not want it to be a white elephant.
 
Arion640
Posts: 2835
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Dec 28, 2019 6:40 pm

par13del wrote:
So how much trade and travel presently takes place between Scotland and NI, yes there will be jobs created to build the bridge, but the reason for building the bridge should be it use and economic impact ob the regions, would not want it to be a white elephant.


I think it’s also supposed to help link the rest of the UK to NI. We are one nation after all.
1973-2020
 
Klaus
Posts: 21502
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Dec 28, 2019 8:20 pm

Arion640 wrote:
par13del wrote:
So how much trade and travel presently takes place between Scotland and NI, yes there will be jobs created to build the bridge, but the reason for building the bridge should be it use and economic impact ob the regions, would not want it to be a white elephant.


I think it’s also supposed to help link the rest of the UK to NI. We are one nation after all.

Not when it's about actually deciding things, though. Then England just runs roughshod over the other regions, as we see with Brexit.
 
Arion640
Posts: 2835
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sat Dec 28, 2019 8:41 pm

Klaus wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
par13del wrote:
So how much trade and travel presently takes place between Scotland and NI, yes there will be jobs created to build the bridge, but the reason for building the bridge should be it use and economic impact ob the regions, would not want it to be a white elephant.


I think it’s also supposed to help link the rest of the UK to NI. We are one nation after all.

Not when it's about actually deciding things, though. Then England just runs roughshod over the other regions, as we see with Brexit.


It’s not that England wants to do that, it’s just the electorate is bigger there.
1973-2020
 
A101
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:00 am

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:

Which is the point: no regulatory harmonisation means checks and certifications and having all your cattle separate from non-EU certified ones.



A health certificate is required to prove only that a certain animal or product is free from certain disease. This is something that happens in islands in many jurisdictions. It's a minor check (and usually provided for free or almost free by the relevant authority).

Proving your product meets EU, US or Japanese requirements is a whole different league as far as certifications go. Hence: EUCAS, FDA-approved procedures, etc.

Why isn't Canada exporting as much as they hoped to the EU?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/ ... -1.5312594



There is no regulatory equivalence. And Canadian farmers know getting EU-certified is costly. So costly most just don't bother.



I know you are not illiterate but I am starting to wonder about your comprehension skills, I have shown you the relevant EU council regulation in respect to FSANZ/ EU regulatory equivalence for organic products and production. You seem to be under illusion that all organic production is destined for the EU.


There is no HS code for organic products, and organic certification does not say anything about the eligibility of your products being admissible in any market.

The relevance of organic labelling as far as international trade goes doesn't move the needle above zero. Mostly because you still have to abide by all the other, heavier rules.




Did I say that Regulatory Equivalence means Australia can automatically export organic products to the EU without complying with EU regulations for the importation of organic goods?........NO

All I'm trying to say is if the EU insisted on every nation having the exact same rules as the EU to export to the EU no one would trade with the EU.

Australia imports to the EU beef quotas under GATT for High-quality beef Grain-fed beef, which is open to Australia, the US, New Zealand, Uruguay and Argentina for the 45,000-tonne beef quota issued by the EU, Australia also has access to the dairy sheep and goatmeat quota. Canada used to be a part of it but under CETA they have their own quota



The point I am trying to make is that the EU has recognised the Australian regulatory controls for organic Agri production under regulatory equivalence with EU council regulation 1235/2008 you seem to think it relates only to labelling which it does not, and is clearly represented in the heading;


COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1235/2008
of 8 December 2008
laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries



As I pointed out before Regulatory alignment does not necessarily mean identical rules but the end result in the same outcome, this is what the above means for Regulatory Equivalence it recognises nothing more nothing less. The UK divergences from the minimum food standards is nothing to be afraid of.

The Withdrawal agreement could have been accomplished within the original time frame if Brussels recognised that the UK was leaving after the referenda result and had the EU not been so dogmatic in its blind pursuit to trying to punish the UK for leaving the Union, all it had achieved was to increase the resolve of the silent majority who voted to leave more as can be shown by Johnson’s win at the last GE, both parties could have walked away with a win.

The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 made provisions for saving for EU law into domestic legislation but without the ECJ having oversight, this could have easily been made a permanent feature for NI had the EU made overtures for Regulatory equivalence and Mutual Recognition for NI within the FTA
 
Klaus
Posts: 21502
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Dec 29, 2019 2:37 am

A101 wrote:
The point I am trying to make is that the EU has recognised the Australian regulatory controls for organic Agri production under regulatory equivalence with EU council regulation 1235/2008 you seem to think it relates only to labelling which it does not, and is clearly represented in the heading;

If that part of the agreement only applies to the additional organic certification after the producer has already had to run the whole gamut of the regular certification in additiona to that, then this does not remotely mean what you seem to think it did.
 
A101
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:43 am

Klaus wrote:
A101 wrote:
The point I am trying to make is that the EU has recognised the Australian regulatory controls for organic Agri production under regulatory equivalence with EU council regulation 1235/2008 you seem to think it relates only to labelling which it does not, and is clearly represented in the heading;



If that part of the agreement only applies to the additional organic certification after the producer has already had to run the whole gamut of the regular certification in additiona to that, then this does not remotely mean what you seem to think it did.



Your being very disambiguous by choice in your post, your assuming that AU changed to accomadate the EU, but from what I can work out before organic goods started to become fashionable AU had taken its directions for sustainability of organic production from international federation of organic agriculture founded in the 70’s which is also the basis for the current EU standards in the 90’s so while AU and EU may not have the exact same wording on organic production production ends up in the same place if you compared both EU/AU side by side that is the whole point of the EU recognition for Regulatory Equivalence
 
Arion640
Posts: 2835
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:18 pm

A very worried European Union.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.expr ... -leyen/amp

The tables have turned.
1973-2020
 
Klaus
Posts: 21502
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:23 pm

A101 wrote:
Your being very disambiguous by choice in your post,

I do indeed try to avoid and remove ambiguity wherever I can! ;-)

your assuming that AU changed to accomadate the EU, but from what I can work out before organic goods started to become fashionable AU had taken its directions for sustainability of organic production from international federation of organic agriculture founded in the 70’s which is also the basis for the current EU standards in the 90’s so while AU and EU may not have the exact same wording on organic production production ends up in the same place if you compared both EU/AU side by side that is the whole point of the EU recognition for Regulatory Equivalence

The problem in your argumentation is that you're misinterpreting the add-on regulations for only organic products to claim that those were all the regulations organic farmers had to contend with while actually all farmers wanting to export to the EU have to undergo an extensive regulation and certification regime to gain that permission – organic farmers just need to prove compliance with even more regulations, but the baseline certification regime needs to be satisfied as well, of course!

Any substantial deviation from EU rules and regulations will create the need for a new corresponding certification regime to ensure that products and services comply with EU rules and regulations.

Boris and others have long been trying to deny that reality, but a look at all the other EU trading partners and what they need to do to trade with the EU shows that such hopes are unrealistic.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21502
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:30 pm

Arion640 wrote:
A very worried European Union.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... -leyen/amp

The tables have turned.

von der Leyen is indeed worried that the UK is still on its self-destructive course by restricting its own options to a time frame which won't allow for a really substantial trade deal to be finished. All that dawdling on the UK side has now wasted much of the transition phase so the UK has less and less hope of getting a good deal in the little time that still remains.

As always, though, the damage from Boris' course will be most severe on the UK. The EU doesn't welcome such self-harm and will see some effects, too, but comparatively minor ones.

So no, no "tables have turned": The UK still has the short end of the stick. UK-domestic propaganda just keeps misrepresenting the actual situation, as usual.
 
parkers4
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:37 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:38 pm

Do you really think that Brexit will help to UK ?
 
JJJ
Posts: 3477
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Dec 29, 2019 12:44 pm

A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:


I know you are not illiterate but I am starting to wonder about your comprehension skills, I have shown you the relevant EU council regulation in respect to FSANZ/ EU regulatory equivalence for organic products and production. You seem to be under illusion that all organic production is destined for the EU.


There is no HS code for organic products, and organic certification does not say anything about the eligibility of your products being admissible in any market.

The relevance of organic labelling as far as international trade goes doesn't move the needle above zero. Mostly because you still have to abide by all the other, heavier rules.




Did I say that Regulatory Equivalence means Australia can automatically export organic products to the EU without complying with EU regulations for the importation of organic goods?........NO


Then what's the relevance? Organic is a note at the bottom on the book of international trade. It's basically meaningless. So meaningless a lot if not most countries don't bother making their own rules on it and rely on private certificators.

All I'm trying to say is if the EU insisted on every nation having the exact same rules as the EU to export to the EU no one would trade with the EU.


And you're being shown the absolute opposite of this affirmation. If you want to trade with the EU, you need to have your goods certified as EU compliant. Not just for food, but also for manufactured goods like the famous CE marking which goes as far back as the 80s.

That doesn't mean that country X can't have their own standards, or that those standards may or may not be more stringent that the EU's, but in order to trade with the EU you need to have them certified and verified under EU rules. It's not unique to the EU: USA, Japan, China.... everyone does it.

Australia imports to the EU beef quotas under GATT for High-quality beef Grain-fed beef, which is open to Australia, the US, New Zealand, Uruguay and Argentina for the 45,000-tonne beef quota issued by the EU, Australia also has access to the dairy sheep and goatmeat quota. Canada used to be a part of it but under CETA they have their own quota


Which again is a trade question, the EU opens their borders to whatever amount of meat from X countries. But that meat still has to be certified as fit for the EU (like the famous no hormone, no antibiotics rules, which means cattle meant for the EU can't be mixed in the same property as hormone or antibiotic-grown cattle). You can apply for your quota all you want, but if you don't have the necessary certifications most times you won't be able to even load it into the ship (pre-clearing) or it will be rejected and destroyed on entry.



The point I am trying to make is that the EU has recognised the Australian regulatory controls for organic Agri production under regulatory equivalence with EU council regulation 1235/2008 you seem to think it relates only to labelling which it does not, and is clearly represented in the heading;


COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1235/2008
of 8 December 2008
laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries


The only reason you want your meat or beans or mayonnaise certified it organic is to put it on the label. Organic used to be something anyone could just put on the label until at some point the authorities stepped in.

You can follow organic guidelines for production but you won't be able to put it in your label unless you have the necessary certification.

As I pointed out before Regulatory alignment does not necessarily mean identical rules but the end result in the same outcome, this is what the above means for Regulatory Equivalence it recognises nothing more nothing less. The UK divergences from the minimum food standards is nothing to be afraid of.


Excuse me? The UK is openly talking about allowing hormone and antibiotic-grown meat, chlorine-washed chicken and open the floodgates to all GMO crops. That's a major divergence, and the EU should protect the single market accordingly.

Keep rules aligned with the EU and there won't be a problem in keeping the borders open, but any divergence will be grounds for strengthening rules and controls. Hence the whole conversation about "independent trade policy". It's cool to be independent, but that comes with harsh tradeoffs.
 
LJ
Posts: 4992
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Dec 29, 2019 1:00 pm

Klaus wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
A very worried European Union.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... -leyen/amp

The tables have turned.

von der Leyen is indeed worried that the UK is still on its self-destructive course by restricting its own options to a time frame which won't allow for a really substantial trade deal to be finished. All that dawdling on the UK side has now wasted much of the transition phase so the UK has less and less hope of getting a good deal in the little time that still remains.

As always, though, the damage from Boris' course will be most severe on the UK. The EU doesn't welcome such self-harm and will see some effects, too, but comparatively minor ones.

So no, no "tables have turned": The UK still has the short end of the stick. UK-domestic propaganda just keeps misrepresenting the actual situation, as usual.


What is more worrying is that the article also mentions thet the EU intends to distroy the UK financial sector, whereas it's the EU which is offering the UK a present by alreatdy offering "regulatory oversight equivalance", which it usually uses as a method to punish countries (see Switzerland). Then again, we probably should be pleased that the UK thinks they are winning the war and consider them the strongest. Usually in negotiations, this means it will give in the most in the end.
 
noviorbis77
Posts: 918
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:23 pm

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Dec 29, 2019 1:26 pm

Klaus wrote:
Arion640 wrote:
A very worried European Union.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... -leyen/amp

The tables have turned.

von der Leyen is indeed worried that the UK is still on its self-destructive course by restricting its own options to a time frame which won't allow for a really substantial trade deal to be finished. All that dawdling on the UK side has now wasted much of the transition phase so the UK has less and less hope of getting a good deal in the little time that still remains.

As always, though, the damage from Boris' course will be most severe on the UK. The EU doesn't welcome such self-harm and will see some effects, too, but comparatively minor ones.

So no, no "tables have turned": The UK still has the short end of the stick. UK-domestic propaganda just keeps misrepresenting the actual situation, as usual.


Which EU propaganda did you read that allowed you to believe this opinion?
 
A101
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:54 pm

Klaus wrote:
A101 wrote:
Your being very disambiguous by choice in your post,

I do indeed try to avoid and remove ambiguity wherever I can! ;-)


That would be best interests of everyone to do that

Klaus wrote:
A101 wrote:
your assuming that AU changed to accomadate the EU, but from what I can work out before organic goods started to become fashionable AU had taken its directions for sustainability of organic production from international federation of organic agriculture founded in the 70’s which is also the basis for the current EU standards in the 90’s so while AU and EU may not have the exact same wording on organic production production ends up in the same place if you compared both EU/AU side by side that is the whole point of the EU recognition for Regulatory Equivalence


The problem in your argumentation is that you're misinterpreting the add-on regulations for only organic products to claim that those were all the regulations organic farmers had to contend with while actually all farmers wanting to export to the EU have to undergo an extensive regulation and certification regime to gain that permission – organic farmers just need to prove compliance with even more regulations, but the baseline certification regime needs to be satisfied as well, of course!

Any substantial deviation from EU rules and regulations will create the need for a new corresponding certification regime to ensure that products and services comply with EU rules and regulations.





Ah No;
I’m talking about Regulatory Equivalence nothing more nothing less, unfortunately you are talking about something else entirely further along the chain when exporting to the EU.
 
A101
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit part 7: The Frog who Aspired to Become as Big as the Ox

Sun Dec 29, 2019 4:04 pm

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
Did I say that Regulatory Equivalence means Australia can automatically export organic products to the EU without complying with EU regulations for the importation of organic goods?........NO


Then what's the relevance? Organic is a note at the bottom on the book of international trade. It's basically meaningless. So meaningless a lot if not most countries don't bother making their own rules on it and rely on private certificators.


Really if its at the bottom of international trade then why would the EU make agreements for Regulatory Equivalence, the EU doesn’t do it unless there was a benefit to the EU;
The relevance is that the EU recognise that the regulatory regime of certain non-EU countries is equivalent to the corresponding EU framework in the area specified, Regulatory Equivalence brings benefits to both parties in the way of it makes certain services or entities of non-EU companies acceptable for regulatory purposes in the EU and also it can reduce or eliminates overlaps in compliance requirements for both EU and third country that an agreement has been made with that is the sole purpose of Regulatory Equivalence its mutual recognition that the standards of other in a specified area are sufficiently close to its own to be deemed ’equivalent’

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
All I'm trying to say is if the EU insisted on every nation having the exact same rules as the EU to export to the EU no one would trade with the EU.


And you're being shown the absolute opposite of this affirmation. If you want to trade with the EU, you need to have your goods certified as EU compliant. Not just for food, but also for manufactured goods like the famous CE marking which goes as far back as the 80s.

And as I said to Kluas you are talking about requirements further done the food chain, and its exactly the same for the EU when it exports to Australia or any other country outside the EU
JJJ wrote:

That doesn't mean that country X can't have their own standards, or that those standards may or may not be more stringent that the EU's, but in order to trade with the EU you need to have them certified and verified under EU rules. It's not unique to the EU: USA, Japan, China.... everyone does it.

I’m glad you understand that and remember that if the UK diverges

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
Australia imports to the EU beef quotas under GATT for High-quality beef Grain-fed beef, which is open to Australia, the US, New Zealand, Uruguay and Argentina for the 45,000-tonne beef quota issued by the EU, Australia also has access to the dairy sheep and goatmeat quota. Canada used to be a part of it but under CETA they have their own quota


Which again is a trade question, the EU opens their borders to whatever amount of meat from X countries. But that meat still has to be certified as fit for the EU (like the famous no hormone, no antibiotics rules, which means cattle meant for the EU can't be mixed in the same property as hormone or antibiotic-grown cattle). You can apply for your quota all you want, but if you don't have the necessary certifications most times you won't be able to even load it into the ship (pre-clearing) or it will be rejected and destroyed on entry.

Yep and you just described the whole point of Regulatory Equivalency agreements to help reduce or streamline the regulatory burden when importing/exporting, remember those similar standards apply to domestic production within Australia, remember previously when I said that both the EU/AU organic standards started from the same basis of International federation of organic agriculture.


JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
The point I am trying to make is that the EU has recognised the Australian regulatory controls for organic Agri production under regulatory equivalence with EU council regulation 1235/2008 you seem to think it relates only to labelling which it does not, and is clearly represented in the heading;


COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1235/2008
of 8 December 2008
laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries

The only reason you want your meat or beans or mayonnaise certified it organic is to put it on the label. Organic used to be something anyone could just put on the label until at some point the authorities stepped in.
You can follow organic guidelines for production but you won't be able to put it in your label unless you have the necessary certification.

And once again we come to Equivalency it makes certain services, products or activities of non-EU companies acceptable for regulatory purposes in the EU, but under the agreement both regimes will be audited from time to time to make sure they are meeting the regulatory framework of the respective nations/union


JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
As I pointed out before Regulatory alignment does not necessarily mean identical rules but the end result in the same outcome, this is what the above means for Regulatory Equivalence it recognises nothing more nothing less. The UK divergences from the minimum food standards is nothing to be afraid of.


Excuse me? The UK is openly talking about allowing hormone and antibiotic-grown meat, chlorine-washed chicken and open the floodgates to all GMO crops. That's a major divergence, and the EU should protect the single market accordingly.

Keep rules aligned with the EU and there won't be a problem in keeping the borders open, but any divergence will be grounds for strengthening rules and controls. Hence the whole conversation about "independent trade policy". It's cool to be independent, but that comes with harsh tradeoffs.


And what is the problem of that?...... did you deliberately misunderstand when I said for the purpose of Northern Ireland it could have still remained aligned with EU rules under domestic legislation for goods and Agri products but for the purpose of judicial and legislative remain in the UK alignment under the WA/FTA. it was the EU who was cutting off their nose to spite the face.

From memory I read somewhere that the EU is set to phase out Regulatory Equivalence agreements unless it’s part of a Free Trade Agreement by 2021-2 that’s why there are a lot of negotiations currently taking place for FTA’s not sure how that’s going to work with the US as there a few Equivalence agreements in a number of sectors

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, art, bsbisland, Dieuwer, f18raider, JJJ, kalvado, Moose135, PPVRA and 54 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos