A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Decent article on the whole Brexit and the reasons behind it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ol/605734/

Tugg

"If Britain were to withdraw, we might imagine that we could regain complete national sovereignty. But it would, in fact, be an illusion. Our lives would be increasingly influenced by the EEC, yet we would have no say in decisions which would vitally affect us."

Margaret Thatcher, 1975.

Boom.

Really does that mean all those nations that are not members of the EU and trade with the EU, is there national sovereignty an illusion as well?


All this means in reality is that any goods exported to the EU meets EU standards just as the EU has to abide by rules and regulations of the nation that they export too, has the EU given up its sovereignty because they too follow others rules?

The only influence the EU that will effect the UK minus NI are those goods that directly exported to the EU or any travel to the EU except the ROI.

So you are going to have factories setting up two separate lines: EU lines and one for the UK. 60million consumers and one for 450million. Guess who will dictate the standards, like it or not.

Aesma wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Guy V wants an EU army to face russia. I mentioned this upthread but was told why would the EU want to compete with Russia?

https://youtu.be/MkdIJCqcaNA

So you think having the US army on your soil to defend it is better than having your own part in an EU army to do that ?

It’s pointless. You shouldn’t need a European army as long as France has it’s nuclear warheads, and even then NATO exists to defend the West. There is no need for a European army.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

"If Britain were to withdraw, we might imagine that we could regain complete national sovereignty. But it would, in fact, be an illusion. Our lives would be increasingly influenced by the EEC, yet we would have no say in decisions which would vitally affect us."

Margaret Thatcher, 1975.

Boom.

Really does that mean all those nations that are not members of the EU and trade with the EU, is there national sovereignty an illusion as well?


All this means in reality is that any goods exported to the EU meets EU standards just as the EU has to abide by rules and regulations of the nation that they export too, has the EU given up its sovereignty because they too follow others rules?

The only influence the EU that will effect the UK minus NI are those goods that directly exported to the EU or any travel to the EU except the ROI.

So you are going to have factories setting up two separate lines: EU lines and one for the UK. 60million consumers and one for 450million. Guess who will dictate the standards, like it or not.

One line for the 450 million. One line for the 7 Billion.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

"If Britain were to withdraw, we might imagine that we could regain complete national sovereignty. But it would, in fact, be an illusion. Our lives would be increasingly influenced by the EEC, yet we would have no say in decisions which would vitally affect us."

Margaret Thatcher, 1975.

Boom.

Really does that mean all those nations that are not members of the EU and trade with the EU, is there national sovereignty an illusion as well?


All this means in reality is that any goods exported to the EU meets EU standards just as the EU has to abide by rules and regulations of the nation that they export too, has the EU given up its sovereignty because they too follow others rules?

The only influence the EU that will effect the UK minus NI are those goods that directly exported to the EU or any travel to the EU except the ROI.

So you are going to have factories setting up two separate lines: EU lines and one for the UK. 60million consumers and one for 450million. Guess who will dictate the standards, like it or not.

Not everyone exports to the EU, and depending on the product yes there may actually be different lines pending on where the goods are destined.

If the EU product cost more to produce of course they will eliminate the additional expense it’s only natural

JJJ wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Decent article on the whole Brexit and the reasons behind it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ol/605734/

Tugg

"If Britain were to withdraw, we might imagine that we could regain complete national sovereignty. But it would, in fact, be an illusion. Our lives would be increasingly influenced by the EEC, yet we would have no say in decisions which would vitally affect us."

Margaret Thatcher, 1975.

Boom.

The EEC is not the EU we see today. The two are virtually incomparable. We didn’t have political union and superstate characteristics back in 1975. The EU should of been a free trade agreement with a few other close ties and nothing more.

Arion640 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Really does that mean all those nations that are not members of the EU and trade with the EU, is there national sovereignty an illusion as well?


All this means in reality is that any goods exported to the EU meets EU standards just as the EU has to abide by rules and regulations of the nation that they export too, has the EU given up its sovereignty because they too follow others rules?

The only influence the EU that will effect the UK minus NI are those goods that directly exported to the EU or any travel to the EU except the ROI.

So you are going to have factories setting up two separate lines: EU lines and one for the UK. 60million consumers and one for 450million. Guess who will dictate the standards, like it or not.

One line for the 450 million. One line for the 7 Billion.

Now the rest of the world needs to align itself with UK rules? Interesting.

Dutchy wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So you are going to have factories setting up two separate lines: EU lines and one for the UK. 60million consumers and one for 450million. Guess who will dictate the standards, like it or not.

One line for the 450 million. One line for the 7 Billion.

Now the rest of the world needs to align itself with UK rules? Interesting.

Yes they will need too when exporting to the UK,no different when exporting to the EU

JJJ wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Being a little selective?

There's nothing remarkable in Thatcher being the bane of anything to do with Euro-sovereignty. Thatcher admitting that the UK gains nothing (loses, actually) watching European developments from the side is a very interesting development.

She was a supporter of entering into the origins of the EU, the EEC. She wanted Britain to have a seat at the table that was being set for their largest trading and engagement partners.

Tugg

frmrCapCadet wrote:

An Atlantic article mentioned decades ago that labor was concerned about control and Tory about influence. Prescient. But kinda reversed. UK is gaining some control and losing a lot of influence.

Ps. Thatcher was wrong about direction of money flow. The south lost against the north. Still she was right about it being a disaster. Staying out of the euro was wise.

Yes she was right about not joining the Euro, the pound goes huge lengths Towards britains soft power.

Arion640 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

An Atlantic article mentioned decades ago that labor was concerned about control and Tory about influence. Prescient. But kinda reversed. UK is gaining some control and losing a lot of influence.

Ps. Thatcher was wrong about direction of money flow. The south lost against the north. Still she was right about it being a disaster. Staying out of the euro was wise.

Yes she was right about not joining the Euro, the pound goes huge lengths Towards britains soft power.

An important currency is an element of hard power – unless that currency is soft itself.

And aside from niche speculation the Pound has little chance of significantly moving the needle – it's more likely to get yanked around by speculation again, as before.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

One line for the 450 million. One line for the 7 Billion.

Now the rest of the world needs to align itself with UK rules? Interesting.

Yes they will need too when exporting to the UK,no different when exporting to the EU

It is much less likely that a foreign producer will undertake the expense and effort of specific certification for a market of 65 million compared to one of 450 million potential customers.

Exactly that practical experience actually made in previous decades led to the creation of the common economic policies of the EU, and the EU has indeed become a global leader regarding regulations of all kinds – the USA is too fractured itself to be that beyond very basic standards all US states can actually agree on. The EU is much more effective in that regard, and the UK is now falling back to being an isolated smallish country that's not playing a significant role in most global respects any more.

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Now the rest of the world needs to align itself with UK rules? Interesting.

Yes they will need too when exporting to the UK,no different when exporting to the EU

It is much less likely that a foreign producer will undertake the expense and effort of specific certification for a market of 65 million compared to one of 450 million potential customers.

Exactly that practical experience actually made in previous decades led to the creation of the common economic policies of the EU, and the EU has indeed become a global leader regarding regulations of all kinds – the USA is too fractured itself to be that beyond very basic standards all US states can actually agree on. The EU is much more effective in that regard, and the UK is now falling back to being an isolated smallish country that's not playing a significant role in most global respects any more.

Wow, you are so full of yourself... you know what happens when you finish eating yourself... So please, keep digging, you;ll find yourself all the way China soon.

Seriously, you all must control the entire world being so united and not fractious at all and such. You really should take a moment and congratulate yourself!

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Seriously, you all must control the entire world being so united and not fractious at all and such. You really should take a moment and congratulate yourself!

The EU is the result of exactly those experiences already made by the member countries when they were still isolated and divide and conquer still worked great against them from the outside on pretty much every level.

That has largely stopped working against the European Union as the Brexit negotiations have shown most recently, and while unity in many crucial aspects doesn't automatically solve every remaining problem under the sun, it is still a much better starting point than isolation and disunity had been before.

And those prinicples haven't stopped being relevant now that the UK is isolating itself again.

Klaus wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Seriously, you all must control the entire world being so united and not fractious at all and such. You really should take a moment and congratulate yourself!

The EU is the result of exactly those experiences already made by the member countries when they were still isolated and divide and conquer still worked great against them from the outside on pretty much every level.

That has largely stopped working against the European Union as the Brexit negotiations have shown most recently, and while unity in many crucial aspects doesn't automatically solve every remaining problem under the sun, it is still a much better starting point than isolation and disunity had been before.

And those prinicples haven't stopped being relevant now that the UK is isolating itself again.

Again, seriously... this is nowhere near done and you are making definitive statements. We don't know if the UK is "isolating itself" and quite frankly it will work damn hard to not isolate itself.

As to other places making stuff for 65 million people versus the 450 million of the EU.... why the hell can't the UK utilize those exact same things? Why does something have be made different for the UK? And why do you think the UK won't be able to trade with the EU, just like a large number of other nations in the world?

Seriously, get off the high horse.

Tugg

America is a much better friend for the UK than the EU.

I haven’t seen this much bullshyte about fish since the Iceland Air 757 threads. Really UKers...betting the farm on the fishes? Who need banks with their measly £100,000+ per year jobs for average workers. Let them go to Paris or Berlin! Fools.

Tugger wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Being a little selective?

There's nothing remarkable in Thatcher being the bane of anything to do with Euro-sovereignty. Thatcher admitting that the UK gains nothing (loses, actually) watching European developments from the side is a very interesting development.

She was a supporter of entering into the origins of the EU, the EEC. She wanted Britain to have a seat at the table that was being set for their largest trading and engagement partners.

Tugg

Which is exactly what I was saying. Even the staunchest anti-federalists (and even back in the day the criticism of the EEC went along those lines) knew they had to be there or be left out of major decisions which would affect them whether they had a say or not.

UK left their own EEC-lite experiment EFTA to join the table with the big boys because it was the logical move, as much as they despised having to compromise.

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

An Atlantic article mentioned decades ago that labor was concerned about control and Tory about influence. Prescient. But kinda reversed. UK is gaining some control and losing a lot of influence.

Ps. Thatcher was wrong about direction of money flow. The south lost against the north. Still she was right about it being a disaster. Staying out of the euro was wise.

Yes she was right about not joining the Euro, the pound goes huge lengths Towards britains soft power.

An important currency is an element of hard power – unless that currency is soft itself.

And aside from niche speculation the Pound has little chance of significantly moving the needle – it's more likely to get yanked around by speculation again, as before.

As BoE governor Carney put it: Sterling volatility is at emerging market levels and has decoupled from from other advanced economy pairs for obvious reasons.

SanDiegoLover wrote:

I haven’t seen this much bullshyte about fish since the Iceland Air 757 threads. Really UKers...betting the farm on the fishes? Who need banks with their measly £100,000+ per year jobs for average workers. Let them go to Paris or Berlin! Fools.

Not by me personally as I realise we need such high paid jobs - but a lot of the population, even remainers strongly dislike bankers after the financial crisis.

Food supply chain is also important. We can’t import all of it, think of the food miles!

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Now the rest of the world needs to align itself with UK rules? Interesting.

Yes they will need too when exporting to the UK,no different when exporting to the EU

It is much less likely that a foreign producer will undertake the expense and effort of specific certification for a market of 65 million compared to one of 450 million potential customers.

That's all going to come down to profitability for the producer of the product and its up to them if they determine if its worth the effort, but once again if the members within the EU export to third nations they have to meet the national standards of that country. The EU just cant bully a sovereign nation into accepting its standards no matter what the population size. Good Greif

Klaus wrote:

Exactly that practical experience actually made in previous decades led to the creation of the common economic policies of the EU, and the EU has indeed become a global leader regarding regulations of all kinds – the USA is too fractured itself to be that beyond very basic standards all US states can actually agree on. The EU is much more effective in that regard, and the UK is now falling back to being an isolated smallish country that's not playing a significant role in most global respects any more.

What has that got to do with the UK determining its own standards absolutely nothing, EU arrogance is outstanding and knows no bounds

Tugger wrote:

Being a little selective? From the same article:

In September 1992, in a speech to the World Economic Development Conference in the United States, Thatcher predicted “chaos” if the single currency was introduced. “Huge sums would have to be transferred from richer to poorer countries and regions to allow them to take the strain. Even then, unemployment and mass migration across now-open frontiers would follow. And a full-fledged single currency would allow no escape hatch.” She then laid out the consequences: “The growth of extremist parties, battening on fears about mass immigration and unemployment, offering a real—if thoroughly unwelcome—alternative to the Euro-centrist political establishment. If, in addition, you were to create a supranational European federation, and the people could no longer hold their national parliaments to account, extremism could only grow further.” As forecasts go, it was remarkably prescient.

Boom, boom....

Tugg

What's your point? The UK didn't get the Euro and had an opt out for it. Moreover, we still haven't got an European federation, thus that part hasn't happened yet. Finally, though the growth of extremist parties in Europe is happening, the primary reason is not EU migration but migration from outside EU or fear of Muslims.

A101 wrote:

What has that got to do with the UK determining its own standards absolutely nothing, EU arrogance is outstanding and knows no bounds

The UK can determine their own standards all they want. EU standards in many cases become global or at least a base case under which other countries build their own systems.

It's just more economical to adopt the bigger neighbour standards because it makes compliance easier.

JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

What has that got to do with the UK determining its own standards absolutely nothing, EU arrogance is outstanding and knows no bounds

The UK can determine their own standards all they want. EU standards in many cases become global or at least a base case under which other countries build their own systems.

It's just more economical to adopt the bigger neighbour standards because it makes compliance easier.

Not necessarily it just makes it easier to export, case in point the way the EU is pushing the AU government to increase its fuel standards, as not all current euro manufactured cars can run effectively on it therefore reduces export potential. There’s always a reason and it’s mainly money that controls the agenda. That’s why AU is suggesting a increase will not happen until at least 2027/8 for the refinery to make adjustments

Arion640 wrote:

One line for the 450 million. One line for the 7 Billion.

Seriously????

You'd better say

"One line for the 450M, At least a handful of different lines for the 7BN others".

Not very likely is it?

Besides, -and luckily for British manufacturers I should say- of those 7BN consumers you refer to, the overwhelming number is from countries that fully allign themselves with what is seen as 'international standards', meaning in practive it's either the EU's or the US' standard to the letter.

Given the EU's increasing global soft power as evidenced by the stream of massive FTAs it has recently concluded as well as the current US' administration's negative attitude towards global trade, there's a noticable preference for EU standards all throughout the world since a few years now, even according to the US ambassador to the EU!

So in other words: if you want to become GLOBAL Britain like BoJo dreams about, you'll still find yourself following all of the EU rules to the letter, if not for the sake of the EU itself any longer, then definitely for the sake of all those others aruond the world you'd want to sell to and who'll impose it upon you to do as part of the requirement to gain access.

A real pitty not to have any say over those EU rules any longer really because it would allow you to shape them to your own liking and convenience, but that's Brexit for you: being downgraded to a simple rule taker.

Oh, but at least the UK can now produce to its own standards for domestic use, right?
Ironically, it could also do so as a EU member because single market rules are not applicable to domestic matters (ask Boris and the kipper he waved at the party conference last year...)
The fact nobody bothered doing so in the UK is indicative of just how much sense it made to have 2 standards in the past, or in fact how likely it is to have them in future.

Bottom line is that if the EU decides to change something to its rules tomorrow, guess how long it will take for that to become pretty much the international standard and thus also the de facto British standard, if not automatically by (EU) law like in the past, then in practice anyway?

sabenapilot wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

One line for the 450 million. One line for the 7 Billion.

Seriously????

You'd better say

"One line for the 450M, At least a handful of different lines for the 7BN others".

Not very likely is it?

Besides, -and luckily for British manufacturers I should say- of those 7BN consumers you refer to, the overwhelming number is from countries that fully allign themselves with what is seen as 'international standards', meaning in practive it's either the EU's or the US' standard to the letter.

Given the EU's increasing global soft power as evidenced by the stream of massive FTAs it has recently concluded as well as the current US' administration's negative attitude towards global trade, there's a noticable preference for EU standards all throughout the world since a few years now, even according to the US ambassador to the EU!

So in other words: if you want to become GLOBAL Britain, you'll still find yourself following the EU rules, if not for the sake of the EU itself, then for the sake of all those others you'd want to sell to and who'll impose you do as their rules.

A pitty not to have a say in them really because it would allow you to shape them to your liking, but that's Brexit for you: being a rule taker.

Oh, but at least the UK can now produce to its own standards for domestic use, right?
Ironically, it could also do so as a EU member because single market rules are not applicable to domestic matters (ask Boris and the kipper he waved at the party conference last year...)
The fact nobody bothered doing so in the UK is indicative of just how much sense it made to have 2 standards in the past, or in fact how likely it is to have them in future.

Bottom line is that if the EU decides to change something to its rules tomorrow, guess how long it will take for that to become pretty much the international standard and thus also the de facto British standard, if not automatically by (EU) law like in the past, then in practice anyway?

Privacy laws like gdpr is an example.

Teansport standards like euro6, v2x etc other.

Official the negitistions need to be finnished before october 15.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... is-johnson

I guess that this is impossible...

2 options - wto from 2021 or another extension.

I believe that the negotiations will take at least 3-7 years.

This means that UK will still be part of SM in 2025.

olle wrote:

Privacy laws like gdpr is an example.

Indeed:

https://gdpr.eu/companies-outside-of-europe/

olle wrote:

Official the negitistions need to be finnished before october 15.

2 options - wto from 2021 or another extension.

Careful with the wording!

The newspeak of Britain has changed now: not only has the Government banned the word 'Brexit', it has also decided to refer to 'trade under WTO rules' as 'Australia type trade'.

Tugger wrote:

Klaus wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yes they will need too when exporting to the UK,no different when exporting to the EU

It is much less likely that a foreign producer will undertake the expense and effort of specific certification for a market of 65 million compared to one of 450 million potential customers.

Exactly that practical experience actually made in previous decades led to the creation of the common economic policies of the EU, and the EU has indeed become a global leader regarding regulations of all kinds – the USA is too fractured itself to be that beyond very basic standards all US states can actually agree on. The EU is much more effective in that regard, and the UK is now falling back to being an isolated smallish country that's not playing a significant role in most global respects any more.

Wow, you are so full of yourself... you know what happens when you finish eating yourself... So please, keep digging, you;ll find yourself all the way China soon.

Seriously, you all must control the entire world being so united and not fractious at all and such. You really should take a moment and congratulate yourself!

Tugg

Let's take the example of car regulations in the US, it is my understanding that California introduced much tougher regulations in regards to emission and in the end car manufactures adopted those, because it was too much to produce two separate cars for both US markets.

It is logic, Tugg, nothing else. The EU will make it mandatory to have one kind of recharger, what do you think will happen to the rest of the world?

sabenapilot wrote:

olle wrote:

Official the negitistions need to be finnished before october 15.

2 options - wto from 2021 or another extension.

Careful with the wording!

The newspeak of Britain has changed now: not only has the Government banned the word 'Brexit', it has also decided to refer to 'trade under WTO rules' as 'Australia type trade'.

Oh boy, framing the sh!t out of things.

It seems some here have not understood how the EU works to make its standards a global standard.

There is a little organization in Geneva that is called UNECE that publish global standards.
That organization works on the basis that each member has one vote. The US, one vote , japan one vote, each european state one vote and so on.
It means very often the eu states works with japan and south-korea to build a standard that becomes de facto the world standard.

Eitas from 2021 as visa?

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ne ... 18016.html

JJJ wrote:

As BoE governor Carney put it: Sterling volatility is at emerging market levels and has decoupled from from other advanced economy pairs for obvious reasons.

The UK has just not actually exited economically yet.

A101 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

A101 wrote:

What has that got to do with the UK determining its own standards absolutely nothing, EU arrogance is outstanding and knows no bounds

The UK can determine their own standards all they want. EU standards in many cases become global or at least a base case under which other countries build their own systems.

It's just more economical to adopt the bigger neighbour standards because it makes compliance easier.

Not necessarily it just makes it easier to export, case in point the way the EU is pushing the AU government to increase its fuel standards, as not all current euro manufactured cars can run effectively on it therefore reduces export potential. There’s always a reason and it’s mainly money that controls the agenda. That’s why AU is suggesting a increase will not happen until at least 2027/8 for the refinery to make adjustments

Not necessarily doesn't mean much in this context. Of course any nation has ultimate power over following or not, it just turns out there is a good incentive in following. It's called the Brussels effect

https://www.law.columbia.edu/media_inqu ... els-effect

GDPR, the EU law on data privacy has had a massive impact worldwide, not just the EU.

Hot U.S. Import: European Regulations
Sonos, Apple, Facebook and Twitter are among the U.S. companies implementing the new data-privacy law
https://www.wsj.com/articles/techs-pick ... 1525685400

olle wrote:

Official the negitistions need to be finnished before october 15.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics ... is-johnson

I guess that this is impossible...

2 options - wto from 2021 or another extension.

I believe that the negotiations will take at least 3-7 years.

This means that UK will still be part of SM in 2025.

All evidence I've seen so far only leaves one conclusion: Boris is still steering towards a hard Brexit and he isn't pursuing any actual deal anyway.

And he won't need much time for that – it's apparently just about shifting the blame to the EU afterwards as usual.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

One line for the 450 million. One line for the 7 Billion.

Now the rest of the world needs to align itself with UK rules? Interesting.

Yes they will need too when exporting to the UK,no different when exporting to the EU

So you ignore the obvious conclusion: don't bother with additional costs and complications for a small UK market, concentrate on the large EU market that you are already set up for.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Now the rest of the world needs to align itself with UK rules? Interesting.

Yes they will need too when exporting to the UK,no different when exporting to the EU

So you ignore the obvious conclusion: don't bother with additional costs and complications for a small UK market, concentrate on the large EU market that you are already set up for.

I don’t think the worlds fifth biggest economy is that easy to ignore. we have an economy larger than france remember.

A101 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Exactly that practical experience actually made in previous decades led to the creation of the common economic policies of the EU, and the EU has indeed become a global leader regarding regulations of all kinds – the USA is too fractured itself to be that beyond very basic standards all US states can actually agree on. The EU is much more effective in that regard, and the UK is now falling back to being an isolated smallish country that's not playing a significant role in most global respects any more.

What has that got to do with the UK determining its own standards absolutely nothing, EU arrogance is outstanding and knows no bounds

It's got a lot to do with it: The UK can set its own standards as much as it wants, but if nobody else bothers to adopt those because it's not economically viable just for one smallish country as a customer, then the UK's own standards become only a trade impediment but exert no actual influence to the outside.

You need to be big enough to manage that, and the EU is, but not even Germany could achieve that on its own, so the UK being much weaker in actual trade doesn't have any better chance in that either. It's got nothing to do with Germany being "better" than the UK, it's just a matter of size.

And that is just the cold, hard reality which is one of the reasons why the European Union was built in the first place (among many others, but it's still an important aspect). It's not maligning the UK, it is just how the world works and if there is any accusation to make it's that Boris Johnson and his accomplices have actively been trying to obfuscate this inconvenient fact.

Arion640 wrote:

I don’t think the worlds fifth biggest economy is that easy to ignore.

Sure, but what does India have to do with anything here?

we have an economy larger than france remember.

Just marginally, at the latest estimate.
You've already slipped to 6th place due to Brexit and that slide is likely to continue once you've lost not just the political influence but the economical benefits of EU membership, too.

Can some brexiteer give an example of some hypothetical new UK standard and in which practical situation it is hoped to be adopted by outsiders so that this causes some benefit to UK. To me this sounds like just some gorilla-style-chest-pounding "we can make standards too and get them adopted" rather than something that is even planned to happen in practice. Or at least I cannot imagine how it works so therefore I am asking.

Are you planning to import huge volume of some item which benefits from some specific UK standard and the benefit comes from being different from what EU, USA or Japan or China is having themselves as standards?

Tugger wrote:

Klaus wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Seriously, you all must control the entire world being so united and not fractious at all and such. You really should take a moment and congratulate yourself!

The EU is the result of exactly those experiences already made by the member countries when they were still isolated and divide and conquer still worked great against them from the outside on pretty much every level.

That has largely stopped working against the European Union as the Brexit negotiations have shown most recently, and while unity in many crucial aspects doesn't automatically solve every remaining problem under the sun, it is still a much better starting point than isolation and disunity had been before.

And those prinicples haven't stopped being relevant now that the UK is isolating itself again.

Again, seriously... this is nowhere near done and you are making definitive statements.

No, I'm just explaining why the EU was created regarding its trade-relevant place in the world and that this was in fact successful to a large degree.

We don't know if the UK is "isolating itself" and quite frankly it will work damn hard to not isolate itself.

The UK PM has just declared that he'll refuse any alignment with the EU, and that effectively means isolating the UK from both its by far largest trading partner (both in products and even more importantly in services!) and from all other countries which have aligned themselves with the EU.

Sure, it's a decision the UK can make, but it will have consequences. And those consequences are not due to any malicious act on the part of the EU but simply automatic by the way the world works.

As to other places making stuff for 65 million people versus the 450 million of the EU.... why the hell can't the UK utilize those exact same things? Why does something have be made different for the UK?

Sure, but then the whole "the UK can set its own standards!" idea is effectively out of the window in one big heave!

And why do you think the UK won't be able to trade with the EU, just like a large number of other nations in the world?

All of them can buy whatever they want from the EU (but some like the Trump administration love to levy extra taxes from their own populations for doing so, which is what tariffs actually are!).

Exporting to the EU, on the other hand, requires one of two things:

1. Each exporting business proving individually that its products meet EU standards and regulations. That is what australian producers need to do today, for instance, and it is expensive and difficult to gain and maintain that proof.

or

2. foreign countries aligning their own standards and regulations to the EU's and getting the EU's acknowledgment of that, so anything that's produced in those countries automatically meets EU regulations and individual businesses have it a lot easier at much lower overhead cost to export to the EU.

1. is very cumbersome and inefficient and eats into the profits to be made; 2. is much easier and more efficient which is why many countries have either trade deals which provide that alignment at least in certain market segments or align more fully with EU rules and regulations to the benefit of their businesses.

Fully diverging from the EU will come at a substantial cost to UK businesses, and even more so to the critical UK service industries than to producing businesses.

And all the blustering platitudes in the world won't change those cold, hard facts – those platitudes in his jocular and grandiose speeches are only for massaging Johnson's domestic audience but they don't make a whit of a difference to the actual reality of the UK's future trade relations.

Seriously, get off the high horse.

None of this is just made up to annoy anyone – the whole point of the Common Market is the acceptance that the world actually works like that, and has done that for a long time already!

Just because you refuse to suck it up to the EU does not mean you can not work with other countries like the USA, the Commonwealth and others. The UK is a global power with a lot of friends outside Europe.

Klaus wrote:

[The UK PM has just declared that he'll refuse any alignment with the EU:] it's a decision the UK can make, but it will have consequences.
And those consequences are not due to any malicious act on the part of the EU but simply automatic by the way the world works.

Actually, like you say later, he's just selling blustering platitudes for his domestic audience…

In the end, he'll strongly "refuse any legal alignment with the EU's SM" to satisfy his electoral base who just want to believe the UK did make a clean break with the EU and then come up with someting like him "letting British industry decide what's best for them" (sounds very Tory doesn't it?), for instance by not having any British standards at all ("cutting red tape" as they tend to say), after which the UK's industry effectively follows all of the EU standards to the letter like before because they will find that's what's making most sense for them…

In short: similar to how 'the Brussels effect' works elsewhere in the world really: follow the EU, either by copy-pasting the standards in domestic law, or not having any domestic law precluding the use of the EU standards.

Or is this 'champion of global free trade' going to force upon British businesses deliberately different standards so they face additional red tape and are given a competitive handicap just for the sake of the UK willing to be different? I doubt it.

Dutchy wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Klaus wrote:

It is much less likely that a foreign producer will undertake the expense and effort of specific certification for a market of 65 million compared to one of 450 million potential customers.

Exactly that practical experience actually made in previous decades led to the creation of the common economic policies of the EU, and the EU has indeed become a global leader regarding regulations of all kinds – the USA is too fractured itself to be that beyond very basic standards all US states can actually agree on. The EU is much more effective in that regard, and the UK is now falling back to being an isolated smallish country that's not playing a significant role in most global respects any more.

Wow, you are so full of yourself... you know what happens when you finish eating yourself... So please, keep digging, you;ll find yourself all the way China soon.

Seriously, you all must control the entire world being so united and not fractious at all and such. You really should take a moment and congratulate yourself!

Tugg

Let's take the example of car regulations in the US, it is my understanding that California introduced much tougher regulations in regards to emission and in the end car manufactures adopted those, because it was too much to produce two separate cars for both US markets.

It is logic, Tugg, nothing else. The EU will make it mandatory to have one kind of recharger, what do you think will happen to the rest of the world?

Not in China probably. And also in many regions it won't be an issue or adopted. As china is a huge market and a driver of market condition in the one-third or the world where they reign, I think it will be whatever they produce and decide to sell.

But that is a small potatoes charger, as to much more expensive auto's you already see different standards making cars for different regions, and the world is fine with that. China has its standards, India its standards, the EU its standards, and the USA with its standards. And cars are produced to meet each of them in those regions. And of course where they can over lap and sell one regions standards into another they do. but they do so with the cost in mind so they can stay competitive to that regional market. If the EU wants far higher/more expensive standards, that is fine, the world will produce to meet them and sell them into that market and accept the money from the EU population. And then sell their other vehicles in the other parts of the world without those standards and costs.

The EU can mandate whatever rules it wishes (essentially) for its governed regions, and it can isolate or insulate itself as well. China does it so I won't be at all surprised if another governing body does the same. The world will adjust and be OK.

I am still thinking we'll see an USMCA-UK agreement sometime in the future....

Tugg

Arion640 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Guy V wants an EU army to face russia. I mentioned this upthread but was told why would the EU want to compete with Russia?

https://youtu.be/MkdIJCqcaNA

So you think having the US army on your soil to defend it is better than having your own part in an EU army to do that ?

It’s pointless. You shouldn’t need a European army as long as France has it’s nuclear warheads, and even then NATO exists to defend the West. There is no need for a European army.

Well I don't know. The problem with MAD is that it's mad. If Russia invades a Baltic country, would the French president lob a nuke at Moscow, with the certainty that there would be one (or rather, 100) coming back on Paris and every other French city ?

That's precisely why countries that could have nukes don't, they don't want to take the risk. In the case of NATO countries, they can get US nukes fitted to their planes, but it's not the same, no ballistic missiles in submarines in some ocean.

As far as NATO haven't you noticed how it's being undermined by the US ? And again, how can you speak about sovereignty and accept a US military presence on your soil ? Do you notice foreign military presence on US soil ?

Aesma wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

So you think having the US army on your soil to defend it is better than having your own part in an EU army to do that ?

It’s pointless. You shouldn’t need a European army as long as France has it’s nuclear warheads, and even then NATO exists to defend the West. There is no need for a European army.

Well I don't know. The problem with MAD is that it's mad. If Russia invades a Baltic country, would the French president lob a nuke at Moscow, with the certainty that there would be one (or rather, 100) coming back on Paris and every other French city ?

That's precisely why countries that could have nukes don't, they don't want to take the risk. In the case of NATO countries, they can get US nukes fitted to their planes, but it's not the same, no ballistic missiles in submarines in some ocean.

As far as NATO haven't you noticed how it's being undermined by the US ? And again, how can you speak about sovereignty and accept a US military presence on your soil ? Do you notice foreign military presence on US soil ?

After looking, the Netherlands and Germany have some sort of military base in the US. The UK has some presence on US soil. Germany also hosts a US military base so it isn’t just the UK with a US one on it.

olle wrote:

Eitas from 2021 as visa?

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ne ... 18016.html

The UK may not accept EU ID cards in the future so entry will be via passport only.

Plus the Immigration Rules will apply, rather than EEA regs so we can start refusing entry to EU nationals at the border, who can’t satisfy meeting immigration rules.

Presumably the EU nations can apply the same logic to UK citizens they are not happy with.

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

I don’t think the worlds fifth biggest economy is that easy to ignore.

Sure, but what does India have to do with anything here?

we have an economy larger than france remember.

Just marginally, at the latest estimate.
You've already slipped to 6th place due to Brexit and that slide is likely to continue once you've lost not just the political influence but the economical benefits of EU membership, too.

Actually we are 7th I believe in terms of largest economies.

It was rather funny to see that guernesey fishing waters was solved so fast, when the french told them that in that case, selling theses fishes in France will not be allowed. The fight lasted a whole 24 h.....