Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:24 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
A101 wrote:
Really have to wonder about all the bleating on backsliding the EU trying to spin something that’s not there as usaual.

Using a non binding declaration that doesn't actully say we have to commit to incorporating EU law into UK law. The political declaration is a matter of interpretation, but I notice when Barnier uses the political declaration he leaves out para 4: It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom: Blindly insisting incorporating EU law into UK law is not respecting UK sovereignty. If we were to do that then there was no point to leaving the EU.

4. The future relationship will be based on a balance of rights and obligations, taking into account the principles of each Party. This balance must ensure the autonomy of the Union's decision making and be consistent with the Union's principles, in particular with respect to the integrity of the Single Market and the Customs Union and the indivisibility of the four freedoms. It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy and the ending of free movement of people between the Union and the United Kingdom.


I must have missed where MB insist "EU law into UK law", could you please quote it from his speach ?

I feel he simply repeat the PD is a base framework agreed between EU and Johnson government to highlight it's a bit of a problem if UK doesn't recognise it anymore but still want a fast negotiation... Seriously, from UK it's far from being good faith to negate it now.

BTW, sweet irony to read you say the PD is non-binding so doesn't really matter, I kind of remember a non binding stuff that became the white card for anything Brexiter wanted... .... Yeah I know : :hissyfit: it's different because Cameron sent a letter :hissyfit:



EU is insisting on regulatory alignment: ie the EU wants the UK to follow both existing and future EU rules the only legal way that can happen is via incorporating EU law into UK.


If the UK made a law that the EU didn’t like and was against its own interests you would be happy to do so?
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 05, 2020 10:51 pm

A101 wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
A101 wrote:
Really have to wonder about all the bleating on backsliding the EU trying to spin something that’s not there as usaual.

Using a non binding declaration that doesn't actully say we have to commit to incorporating EU law into UK law. The political declaration is a matter of interpretation, but I notice when Barnier uses the political declaration he leaves out para 4: It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom: Blindly insisting incorporating EU law into UK law is not respecting UK sovereignty. If we were to do that then there was no point to leaving the EU.



I must have missed where MB insist "EU law into UK law", could you please quote it from his speach ?

I feel he simply repeat the PD is a base framework agreed between EU and Johnson government to highlight it's a bit of a problem if UK doesn't recognise it anymore but still want a fast negotiation... Seriously, from UK it's far from being good faith to negate it now.

BTW, sweet irony to read you say the PD is non-binding so doesn't really matter, I kind of remember a non binding stuff that became the white card for anything Brexiter wanted... .... Yeah I know : :hissyfit: it's different because Cameron sent a letter :hissyfit:



EU is insisting on regulatory alignment: ie the EU wants the UK to follow both existing and future EU rules the only legal way that can happen is via incorporating EU law into UK.


If the UK made a law that the EU didn’t like and was against its own interests you would be happy to do so?


Please
Grizzly410 wrote:
I must have missed where MB insist "EU law into UK law", could you please quote it from his speach ?
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:29 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
A101 wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:

I must have missed where MB insist "EU law into UK law", could you please quote it from his speach ?

I feel he simply repeat the PD is a base framework agreed between EU and Johnson government to highlight it's a bit of a problem if UK doesn't recognise it anymore but still want a fast negotiation... Seriously, from UK it's far from being good faith to negate it now.

BTW, sweet irony to read you say the PD is non-binding so doesn't really matter, I kind of remember a non binding stuff that became the white card for anything Brexiter wanted... .... Yeah I know : :hissyfit: it's different because Cameron sent a letter :hissyfit:



EU is insisting on regulatory alignment: ie the EU wants the UK to follow both existing and future EU rules the only legal way that can happen is via incorporating EU law into UK.


If the UK made a law that the EU didn’t like and was against its own interests you would be happy to do so?


Please
Grizzly410 wrote:
I must have missed where MB insist "EU law into UK law", could you please quote it from his speach ?


Well you know for a fact you he hasn’t said it directly in his latest speech, but he has come out and said we have to stay aligned to EU rules and the RULES are eu LAW

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 6.html?amp

Britain will have to stay aligned to EU rules in a whole set of areas after Brexit if it wants a trade deal, the bloc's chief negotiator has said.



The negotiator's suggestion that "future developments" in EU rules should be incorporated into UK law is likely to be a particular stumbling block, as it rules out a simple "non-regression" clause in the deal keeping British standards at the level they are now.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4091
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Fri Jun 05, 2020 11:35 pm

Both UK and the EU need to be transparent about subsidies, and either side can block products which either think are receiving undue amounts.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11614
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:30 am

A101 wrote:
Well you know for a fact you he hasn’t said it directly in his latest speech, but he has come out and said we have to stay aligned to EU rules and the RULES are eu LAW

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 6.html?amp

Britain will have to stay aligned to EU rules in a whole set of areas after Brexit if it wants a trade deal, the bloc's chief negotiator has said.



The negotiator's suggestion that "future developments" in EU rules should be incorporated into UK law is likely to be a particular stumbling block, as it rules out a simple "non-regression" clause in the deal keeping British standards at the level they are now.


Yes, no unfair competition on the environment, lower labor standards, quality etc. Or do you want the UK to flood the internal EU market with crap, made by overworked, underpaid, in dangerous labor surroundings UK workers all the while polluting the environment?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:25 am

Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Well you know for a fact you he hasn’t said it directly in his latest speech, but he has come out and said we have to stay aligned to EU rules and the RULES are eu LAW

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 6.html?amp

Britain will have to stay aligned to EU rules in a whole set of areas after Brexit if it wants a trade deal, the bloc's chief negotiator has said.



The negotiator's suggestion that "future developments" in EU rules should be incorporated into UK law is likely to be a particular stumbling block, as it rules out a simple "non-regression" clause in the deal keeping British standards at the level they are now.


Yes, no unfair competition on the environment, lower labor standards, quality etc. Or do you want the UK to flood the internal EU market with crap, made by overworked, underpaid, in dangerous labor surroundings UK workers all the while polluting the environment?


I'd like to know what inside information you have on this to say that all those things are going to happen come the end of the transition period......I need to hedge my bets :rotfl:

Its interesting to note that the UK has roughly the 4th highest minimum wage in the EU unlike some nations that do not even have a mandated national minimum wage.

But if you think the UK will flood the EU with crap then the EU standards for goods must be crap as all goods must meet EU standards when entering the SM :rotfl:
 
AeroVega
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:32 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:35 am

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Well you know for a fact you he hasn’t said it directly in his latest speech, but he has come out and said we have to stay aligned to EU rules and the RULES are eu LAW

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 6.html?amp






Yes, no unfair competition on the environment, lower labor standards, quality etc. Or do you want the UK to flood the internal EU market with crap, made by overworked, underpaid, in dangerous labor surroundings UK workers all the while polluting the environment?


I'd like to know what inside information you have on this to say that all those things are going to happen come the end of the transition period......I need to hedge my bets :rotfl:

Its interesting to note that the UK has roughly the 4th highest minimum wage in the EU unlike some nations that do not even have a mandated national minimum wage.

But if you think the UK will flood the EU with crap then the EU standards for goods must be crap as all goods must meet EU standards when entering the SM :rotfl:


That something meets EU standards does not mean it is not crap. And most products are just crap in waiting anyway.

The UK needs to sign off on regulatory alignment or find other export markets. Countries like Norway and Switzerland understand this but it appears too hard to grasp for the UK.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11614
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:42 am

AeroVega wrote:
The UK needs to sign off on regulatory alignment or find other export markets. Countries like Norway and Switzerland understand this but it appears too hard to grasp for the UK.


True, it is indeed a hard concept to grasp for the Brexiteers. Just a reference of thinking Britain is calling the shots. A fundamental flaw in the Brexit reasoning.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 10:01 am

AeroVega wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Yes, no unfair competition on the environment, lower labor standards, quality etc. Or do you want the UK to flood the internal EU market with crap, made by overworked, underpaid, in dangerous labor surroundings UK workers all the while polluting the environment?


I'd like to know what inside information you have on this to say that all those things are going to happen come the end of the transition period......I need to hedge my bets :rotfl:

Its interesting to note that the UK has roughly the 4th highest minimum wage in the EU unlike some nations that do not even have a mandated national minimum wage.

But if you think the UK will flood the EU with crap then the EU standards for goods must be crap as all goods must meet EU standards when entering the SM :rotfl:


That something meets EU standards does not mean it is not crap. And most products are just crap in waiting anyway.

The UK needs to sign off on regulatory alignment or find other export markets. Countries like Norway and Switzerland understand this but it appears too hard to grasp for the UK.


Mmm so every country that the EU has a trade agreement with needs to incorporate EU law just to trade with you. That a big difference from meeting EU standards for goods being exported to the EU then say being exported to the US or China

Do you expect US to incorporate EU law as well because it runs a trade deficit with you, or how about China the EU runs a trade deficit with them is the EU going to incorporate Chinese law as domestic EU law....... I think not
 
AeroVega
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:32 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 10:14 am

A101 wrote:
Mmm so every country that the EU has a trade agreement with needs to incorporate EU law just to trade with you. That a big difference from meeting EU standards for goods being exported to the EU then say being exported to the US or China

Do you expect US to incorporate EU law as well because it runs a trade deficit with you, or how about China the EU runs a trade deficit with them is the EU going to incorporate Chinese law as domestic EU law....... I think not


Nope. Only the ones that have no natural barriers to trade due to geographic proximity. Again, Norway and Switzerland understand this, even Turkey does.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/tu ... regulation
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 10:26 am

AeroVega wrote:
A101 wrote:
Mmm so every country that the EU has a trade agreement with needs to incorporate EU law just to trade with you. That a big difference from meeting EU standards for goods being exported to the EU then say being exported to the US or China

Do you expect US to incorporate EU law as well because it runs a trade deficit with you, or how about China the EU runs a trade deficit with them is the EU going to incorporate Chinese law as domestic EU law....... I think not


Nope. Only the ones that have no natural barriers to trade due to geographic proximity. Again, Norway and Switzerland understand this, even Turkey does.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/tu ... regulation


Natural barrier it’s called being a sovereign coastal nation, we have a natural body of water that separates us being an island, but unfortunately we do have a man made tunnel
 
AeroVega
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:32 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 11:01 am

A101 wrote:
AeroVega wrote:
A101 wrote:
Mmm so every country that the EU has a trade agreement with needs to incorporate EU law just to trade with you. That a big difference from meeting EU standards for goods being exported to the EU then say being exported to the US or China

Do you expect US to incorporate EU law as well because it runs a trade deficit with you, or how about China the EU runs a trade deficit with them is the EU going to incorporate Chinese law as domestic EU law....... I think not


Nope. Only the ones that have no natural barriers to trade due to geographic proximity. Again, Norway and Switzerland understand this, even Turkey does.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/tu ... regulation


Natural barrier it’s called being a sovereign coastal nation, we have a natural body of water that separates us being an island, but unfortunately we do have a man made tunnel


First of all, the UK is not an island and has a land border with the EU.

But even if the UK were just Great Britain then it would be hard to argue that the seas surrounding it would negate the competitive benefits of non-regulatory alignment over EU/EEA members like Ireland and Iceland that are even more separated from the rest of the EU/EEA by sea.

What the UK proposes is to give a non-EU/EEA member a competitive advantage over some EU/EEA members while having less natural barriers to trade with the rest of the EU/EEA. Nice try but that is not going to happen.
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 11:13 am

A101 wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
A101 wrote:


EU is insisting on regulatory alignment: ie the EU wants the UK to follow both existing and future EU rules the only legal way that can happen is via incorporating EU law into UK.


If the UK made a law that the EU didn’t like and was against its own interests you would be happy to do so?


Please
Grizzly410 wrote:
I must have missed where MB insist "EU law into UK law", could you please quote it from his speach ?


Well you know for a fact you he hasn’t said it directly in his latest speech, but he has come out and said we have to stay aligned to EU rules and the RULES are eu LAW

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 6.html?amp

Britain will have to stay aligned to EU rules in a whole set of areas after Brexit if it wants a trade deal, the bloc's chief negotiator has said.



The negotiator's suggestion that "future developments" in EU rules should be incorporated into UK law is likely to be a particular stumbling block, as it rules out a simple "non-regression" clause in the deal keeping British standards at the level they are now.


I wasn't sure and didn't want to reread the whole speach.
As we were discussing yesterday's Barnier speach after negotiation round 4 I don't really understand why you felt necessary to add 4 month old bits.

Plus, Sabenapilot answered to this specific point, you can rest reassured.
sabenapilot wrote:
Mr Barnier showed a possible landing zone during today's press conference on this very issue, when he said that the aim is only to ensure fair competition within the SM when it came to state aid, not to interfere in British domestic law.
The demand until now has been that EU’s rules on state aid should just be incorporated in British law, but today he noticed that robust and binding commitments to this same purpose are a possible alternative too.
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 11:28 am

AeroVega wrote:
A101 wrote:
AeroVega wrote:

Nope. Only the ones that have no natural barriers to trade due to geographic proximity. Again, Norway and Switzerland understand this, even Turkey does.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/tu ... regulation


Natural barrier it’s called being a sovereign coastal nation, we have a natural body of water that separates us being an island, but unfortunately we do have a man made tunnel


First of all, the UK is not an island and has a land border with the EU.

But even if the UK were just Great Britain then it would be hard to argue that the seas surrounding it would negate the competitive benefits of non-regulatory alignment over EU/EEA members like Ireland and Iceland that are even more separated from the rest of the EU/EEA by sea.

What the UK proposes is to give a non-EU/EEA member a competitive advantage over some EU/EEA members while having less natural barriers to trade with the rest of the EU/EEA. Nice try but that is not going to happen.


Whilst there is a land border between ROI & NI it’s still an island that invoke transport cost not associated with continental Europe.

Any trade between a sovereign UK and the EU still has to comply with regulations within the EU and vice versa no different to anyone who exports to the EU. Australia Canada China all have different domestic standards than the EU but they all still export to the EU without regulatory alignment of EU laws into domestic law
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 11:39 am

Grizzly410 wrote:
A101 wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:

Please


Well you know for a fact you he hasn’t said it directly in his latest speech, but he has come out and said we have to stay aligned to EU rules and the RULES are eu LAW

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 6.html?amp

Britain will have to stay aligned to EU rules in a whole set of areas after Brexit if it wants a trade deal, the bloc's chief negotiator has said.



The negotiator's suggestion that "future developments" in EU rules should be incorporated into UK law is likely to be a particular stumbling block, as it rules out a simple "non-regression" clause in the deal keeping British standards at the level they are now.


I wasn't sure and didn't want to reread the whole speach.
As we were discussing yesterday's Barnier speach after negotiation round 4 I don't really understand why you felt necessary to add 4 month old bits.

Plus, Sabenapilot answered to this specific point, you can rest reassured.
sabenapilot wrote:
Mr Barnier showed a possible landing zone during today's press conference on this very issue, when he said that the aim is only to ensure fair competition within the SM when it came to state aid, not to interfere in British domestic law.
The demand until now has been that EU’s rules on state aid should just be incorporated in British law, but today he noticed that robust and binding commitments to this same purpose are a possible alternative too.


Has the EU position changed on regulatory alignment from 4mths ago when Barnier made the speech, it’s all relevant. The guardian article is reflecting the need to change course from the extreme EU position
 
User avatar
Grizzly410
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 8:38 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 11:40 am

A101 wrote:
Any trade between a sovereign UK and the EU still has to comply with regulations within the EU and vice versa


Just like trade between GB and NI :stirthepot:

(yeah, not EXACTLY, just a joke ok)
In order to be old and wise, one must first be young and dumb.
 
AeroVega
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:32 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 11:47 am

A101 wrote:
AeroVega wrote:
A101 wrote:

Natural barrier it’s called being a sovereign coastal nation, we have a natural body of water that separates us being an island, but unfortunately we do have a man made tunnel


First of all, the UK is not an island and has a land border with the EU.

But even if the UK were just Great Britain then it would be hard to argue that the seas surrounding it would negate the competitive benefits of non-regulatory alignment over EU/EEA members like Ireland and Iceland that are even more separated from the rest of the EU/EEA by sea.

What the UK proposes is to give a non-EU/EEA member a competitive advantage over some EU/EEA members while having less natural barriers to trade with the rest of the EU/EEA. Nice try but that is not going to happen.


Whilst there is a land border between ROI & NI it’s still an island that invoke transport cost not associated with continental Europe.

Any trade between a sovereign UK and the EU still has to comply with regulations within the EU and vice versa no different to anyone who exports to the EU. Australia Canada China all have different domestic standards than the EU but they all still export to the EU without regulatory alignment of EU laws into domestic law


The EU/UK conflict is not about that. It is about labour and environmental regulations that govern how the goods are produced. Here is an example: https://chemicalwatch.com/72185/turkey- ... ed-with-eu
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 11:57 am

Grizzly410 wrote:
A101 wrote:
Any trade between a sovereign UK and the EU still has to comply with regulations within the EU and vice versa


Just like trade between GB and NI :stirthepot:

(yeah, not EXACTLY, just a joke ok)


Ah :stirthepot: you are talking about the WA provisions that NI stay in lockstep with EU. not something I totally agree with, but its done now
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11614
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 12:09 pm

A101 wrote:
Australia Canada China all have different domestic standards than the EU but they all still export to the EU without regulatory alignment of EU laws into domestic law


Brexiteers promised a Norwegian style of deal and wanted the trade (e.g. full unrestricted excess to the European common market). to continue as the UK was inside the trade block.

If you want to trade like China, Australia of Canada, fine, but no more perks for you, so no Canada plus deal, just a Canada style deal tailored to EU requirements.

But that is not what was promised, and that is still not the true course of Westminster, at least what they are saying.

Yeah, no need to do the regulatory alignment then, just a huge blow to the trade and British economy.

Let's see where the UK will come up with a competitive edge with no natural resources to speak of, or might it be the case that it will be the workers and the environment will pay the ultimate Brexit price? What you said was "inside information"?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 12:49 pm

Dutchy wrote:

Brexiteers promised a Norwegian style of deal and wanted the trade (e.g. full unrestricted excess to the European common market). to continue as the UK was inside the trade block.



There were no promises made by officials campaign leaders during the referenda campaign by either the leave or remain as neither side was in a legal position to do so, there were suggestions on a possabile outcome but that was always going to have to be negotiated by the government. But if you want to think that was the case be my guest



Dutchy wrote:
If you want to trade like China, Australia of Canada, fine, but no more perks for you, so no Canada plus deal, just a Canada style deal tailored to EU requirements.


Gee I don’t think there were any perks when we were in the EU


Dutchy wrote:
But that is not what was promised, and that is still not the true course of Westminster, at least what they are saying.


So please tell me what was promised by the Cameron government who were in power at the time. The only promise that Cameron made was the government will enact the result of the referenda and that we were leaving the CU/SM and we would have to negotiate a new trade deal under the terms of A50


Dutchy wrote:
Yeah, no need to do the regulatory alignment then, just a huge blow to the trade and British economy.


Yep correct no need for it other trade just as well with the EU without incorporating EU laws into domestic law


Dutchy wrote:
Let's see where the UK will come up with a competitive edge with no natural resources to speak of, or might it be the case that it will be the workers and the environment will pay the ultimate Brexit price? What you said was "inside information"?



Seems you are clutching at straws: coal, petroleum, natural gas, limestone, chalk, gypsum, silica, rock salt,kaolinite, iron ore, tin, silver, gold, lead, are just some of the UK natural resources

Your the one telling you know for certain that the UK will change workers rights and environment laws etcetera & etcetera with your inside knowledge you keep say what will happen when I doubt even Boris knows
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 2:05 pm

Ground hog day in here again.
 
LJ
Posts: 5289
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:42 pm

A101 wrote:
EU is insisting on regulatory alignment: ie the EU wants the UK to follow both existing and future EU rules the only legal way that can happen is via incorporating EU law into UK.


If the UK made a law that the EU didn’t like and was against its own interests you would be happy to do so?


No, but if you want to have access to the market of someone else, you don't have an option. This is where it's usefull to be member of a bigger party. The bigger you are, the more you can export your policies to another party. It's not fair, but life isn't fair.

BTW do you really believe the US will not do the same thing to the UK?
 
LJ
Posts: 5289
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:56 pm

A101 wrote:
Your the one telling you know for certain that the UK will change workers rights and environment laws etcetera & etcetera with your inside knowledge you keep say what will happen when I doubt even Boris knows


Let's be honest, when some iin the UK hope that the UK becomes the "Singapore on the Thames", it doesn't help convincing the other party that the UK won't do it. It's not about what the UK curently does, it is about what the UK can do, and the EU doesn't trust the UK, thus wants assurances that the UK continues doing things as they're currently are doing.

Moreover, you can also turn the question. Why not agreeing to a level playing field if your already following it and want it yourself? Please don't use the argument of "sovereignty" as it is a reason not to trust the UK.
 
JJJ
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:11 pm

A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
A101 wrote:
Well you know for a fact you he hasn’t said it directly in his latest speech, but he has come out and said we have to stay aligned to EU rules and the RULES are eu LAW

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 6.html?amp






Yes, no unfair competition on the environment, lower labor standards, quality etc. Or do you want the UK to flood the internal EU market with crap, made by overworked, underpaid, in dangerous labor surroundings UK workers all the while polluting the environment?


I'd like to know what inside information you have on this to say that all those things are going to happen come the end of the transition period......I need to hedge my bets :rotfl:

Its interesting to note that the UK has roughly the 4th highest minimum wage in the EU unlike some nations that do not even have a mandated national minimum wage.

But if you think the UK will flood the EU with crap then the EU standards for goods must be crap as all goods must meet EU standards when entering the SM :rotfl:


If the UK intends to have worker protections, environmental rules etc. equal or exceeding those of the EU they should have absolutely zero problem in signing up.
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3286
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:20 pm

Grizzly410 wrote:
Plus, Sabenapilot answered to this specific point, you can rest reassured.
sabenapilot wrote:
Mr Barnier showed a possible landing zone during today's press conference on this very issue, when he said that the aim is only to ensure fair competition within the SM when it came to state aid, not to interfere in British domestic law.
The demand until now has been that EU’s rules on state aid should just be incorporated in British law, but today he noticed that robust and binding commitments to this same purpose are a possible alternative too.



Mr Barnier basically cut the crap yesterday and made it clear a sovereign EU is only going to give the UK access to its market if the UK agrees to be doing so from a level playing field.

One obvious way of ensuring this is by automatically turning EU rules in UK law, similar to how Norway does it for instance, but this is a 'no go' for brexiteers as it would mean UK law is effectively written in Brussels, but another way suggested by Mr. Barnier is to include in the EU-UK FTA the obligation for the UK to always legislate domestically in such a way as to fully remain in pace with EU rules in order to obtain -and keep- access to the SM, thus theoretically allowing the UK to diverge (clearly of big symbolic importance to the UK) albeit at the cost of losing future access...

This idea isn't new: it's the same concept governing the guillotine clauses used in the EU-Swiss agreement: Switzerland can also deviate from EU rules and theoretically do what it wants domestically, but if it does so and steps out of pace with the EU, it is immediately cut off of the SM, so in practice it voluntarily decides not to, as a sovereign nation...

Problem solved IMHO: the UK can rightfully pretend to be fully sovereign to legislate as it wants, but voluntarily chose to never demonstrate it in practice not to harm its economic self-interests.
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:44 pm

LJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
Your the one telling you know for certain that the UK will change workers rights and environment laws etcetera & etcetera with your inside knowledge you keep say what will happen when I doubt even Boris knows


Let's be honest, when some iin the UK hope that the UK becomes the "Singapore on the Thames", it doesn't help convincing the other party that the UK won't do it. It's not about what the UK curently does, it is about what the UK can do, and the EU doesn't trust the UK, thus wants assurances that the UK continues doing things as they're currently are doing.

Moreover, you can also turn the question. Why not agreeing to a level playing field if your already following it and want it yourself? Please don't use the argument of "sovereignty" as it is a reason not to trust the UK.



Lets be honest here what the EU is really doing by demanding regulatory alignment is protect its current export market to the UK where the EU has a trade surplus, regulatory alignment prevents the UK from independent regulatory action in the future which will restrict the flexibility when it come to negotiating agreements with other nations which in turn limits the level of competition to the UK market for the EU

Just one aspect of regulatory alignment are food standards the EU doesn't really care what the UK eats but with regulatory alignment of UK food standards we will have continued reliance on EU food production system as it increases the cost for other reliable quality food sources such as Asia pacific
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:49 pm

JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Yes, no unfair competition on the environment, lower labor standards, quality etc. Or do you want the UK to flood the internal EU market with crap, made by overworked, underpaid, in dangerous labor surroundings UK workers all the while polluting the environment?


I'd like to know what inside information you have on this to say that all those things are going to happen come the end of the transition period......I need to hedge my bets :rotfl:

Its interesting to note that the UK has roughly the 4th highest minimum wage in the EU unlike some nations that do not even have a mandated national minimum wage.

But if you think the UK will flood the EU with crap then the EU standards for goods must be crap as all goods must meet EU standards when entering the SM :rotfl:


If the UK intends to have worker protections, environmental rules etc. equal or exceeding those of the EU they should have absolutely zero problem in signing up.


No not really under regulatory alignment means the UK must stay in lockstep with the EU.

In other words if the UK exceeds the level of EU law then the EU could if it wanted to take the UK to the ECJ for diverging from EU rules unless the EU did the same remember Level Playing Field it could lock out the EU from the UK market
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 7:59 pm

sabenapilot wrote:
Grizzly410 wrote:
Plus, Sabenapilot answered to this specific point, you can rest reassured.
sabenapilot wrote:
Mr Barnier showed a possible landing zone during today's press conference on this very issue, when he said that the aim is only to ensure fair competition within the SM when it came to state aid, not to interfere in British domestic law.
The demand until now has been that EU’s rules on state aid should just be incorporated in British law, but today he noticed that robust and binding commitments to this same purpose are a possible alternative too.



Mr Barnier basically cut the crap yesterday and made it clear a sovereign EU is only going to give the UK access to its market if the UK agrees to be doing so from a level playing field.

One obvious way of ensuring this is by automatically turning EU rules in UK law, similar to how Norway does it for instance, but this is a 'no go' for brexiteers as it would mean UK law is effectively written in Brussels, but another way suggested by Mr. Barnier is to include in the EU-UK FTA the obligation for the UK to always legislate domestically in such a way as to fully remain in pace with EU rules in order to obtain -and keep- access to the SM, thus theoretically allowing the UK to diverge (clearly of big symbolic importance to the UK) albeit at the cost of losing future access...

This idea isn't new: it's the same concept governing the guillotine clauses used in the EU-Swiss agreement: Switzerland can also deviate from EU rules and theoretically do what it wants domestically, but if it does so and steps out of pace with the EU, it is immediately cut off of the SM, so in practice it voluntarily decides not to, as a sovereign nation...

Problem solved IMHO: the UK can rightfully pretend to be fully sovereign to legislate as it wants, but voluntarily chose to never demonstrate it in practice not to harm its economic self-interests.


Nothing new in that either you are talking regulatory equivalence or mutual recognition in that the EU recognises other members standards meet or exceeds its own laws
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3286
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:05 pm

A101 wrote:
Lets be honest here what the EU is really doing by demanding regulatory alignment is protect its current export market to the UK where the EU has a trade surplus, regulatory alignment prevents the UK from independent regulatory action in the future which will restrict the flexibility when it come to negotiating agreements with other nations which in turn limits the level of competition to the UK market for the EU


And exactly what is the problem with
a- the EU protecting its own interests?
b- the EU putting a third country in Europe for a simple choice: our rules or those of others, but not the 2 at the same time?.

These 2 quotes from Michel Barnier have been posted here ad nauseam, but I'll add them once again because this discussion about regulatory alignment and who initiates it is nothing but an illustration of what the UK has been told for almost 4 years now, clearly without much understanding accross the Channel:
"Brexit will have consequences" (beyond just those of the UK's choice) and "No cherry picking"

It seems to me like Brexiteers simply can not accept that the EU is not willing to give the UK the market access they had hoped to gain, without imposing conditions of its own sovereign choice to it. And it's then the sovereign choice of the UK to accept those conditions or not: it's not up to the UK to say what those conditions should be: that ship has sailed on Feb 1st.
All the EU can do to facilitate a FTA with the UK is to make it as elegant as possible for the UK to bow to this sovereign demand from the EU, which is what Mr. Barnier has done by suggesting to include the obligation for the UK to remain alligned with the EU rules in the FTA itself as a pre-condition for market access, rather than allow the EU to intervene in British law itself.

This simple and elegant way saves the face of a whole generation of British politicians having massively overpromissed and grossly miscalculated their strength: the UK can 'voluntarily' remain in step with the rest of the European continent (EEA + CH) with which it then continues to trade freely... or it decides to step out of pace now or later, but then it won't trade freely with it any more.
 
AeroVega
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:32 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:31 pm

A101 wrote:
Lets be honest here what the EU is really doing by demanding regulatory alignment is protect its current export market to the UK where the EU has a trade surplus, regulatory alignment prevents the UK from independent regulatory action in the future which will restrict the flexibility when it come to negotiating agreements with other nations which in turn limits the level of competition to the UK market for the EU


Nonsense. The only other nations the UK can negotiate agreements with are at least one ocean away. They are not going to care much about a level playing field as the UK will never be a serious competitor for their own industries anyway.
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:35 pm

sabenapilot wrote:
A101 wrote:
Lets be honest here what the EU is really doing by demanding regulatory alignment is protect its current export market to the UK where the EU has a trade surplus, regulatory alignment prevents the UK from independent regulatory action in the future which will restrict the flexibility when it come to negotiating agreements with other nations which in turn limits the level of competition to the UK market for the EU


And exactly what is the problem with
a- the EU protecting its own interests?
b- the EU putting a third country in Europe for a simple choice: our rules or those of others, but not the 2 at the same time?.

These 2 quotes have been posted here ad nauseam, but I'll add them once again because this issue is nothing but an illustration of what the UK has been told for almost 4 years now:
"Brexit will have consequences" (beyond just those of the UK's choice) and "No cherry picking"

It seems to me like Brexiteers simply can not accept that the EU is not willing to give the UK the market access they had hoped to gain, without imposing conditions of its own sovereign choice to it. And it's then the sovereign choice of the UK to accept those conditions or not.
All the EU can do to facilitate a FTA is to make it as elegant as possible for the UK to bow to this sovereign demand from the EU, which is what Mr. Barnier has done by suggesting to include the obligation for the UK to remain alligned with the EU rules in the FTA itself as a pre-condition for market access, rather than allow the EU to intervene in British law itself.

Simple and elegant, the result will be the same: the UK will be in pace with the rest of the European continent (EEA + CH) with which it continues to trade freely... or it won't be in pace, but then it won't trade freely with it.


Nothing wrong with wanting to protect your trade its in your interest to do so, but it also has to be in the UK interest as well, following EU regulations does not mean we have to be in regulatory alignment.

A independent UK trade policy is not the same as EU trade policy and that's were we may diverge. All goods exported from the UK to the EU will follow regulations just as the EU must follow UK regulations, a independent regulatory regime by the UK means EU products have to compete with other nations.

Just like Australia has differing standards when the EU exports you have to meet your market conditions and compete in those same conditions. if the EU thinks its has better quality and price point than others than the EU has nothing to worry about it will retain market share
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:45 pm

AeroVega wrote:
A101 wrote:
Lets be honest here what the EU is really doing by demanding regulatory alignment is protect its current export market to the UK where the EU has a trade surplus, regulatory alignment prevents the UK from independent regulatory action in the future which will restrict the flexibility when it come to negotiating agreements with other nations which in turn limits the level of competition to the UK market for the EU


Nonsense. The only other nations the UK can negotiate agreements with are at least one ocean away. They are not going to care much about a level playing field as the UK will never be a serious competitor for their own industries anyway.


Of course they can doesn't matter how far the commodity has to travel, if said nation can compete on quality and price point than they will have a completive edge over any domestic industry. the whole idea of the LPF is to restrict UK competitiveness against the EU export market domestically and internationally
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2004
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 9:41 pm

A101 wrote:

Of course they can doesn't matter how far the commodity has to travel, if said nation can compete on quality and price point than they will have a completive edge over any domestic industry. the whole idea of the LPF is to restrict UK competitiveness against the EU export market domestically and internationally


The LPF rules are aimed at stopping the UK from undercutting EU companies within the EU. EU exporters already compete with other exporting nations with vastly different regulatory schemes on a global stage, so that’s a moot point.

Want access to the EU market? Play by EU rules. Don’t? Walk away and find new markets.

All we have right now is Brexiteers complaining about EU rules they don’t want, which they are only required to accept if they want access to an EU market they don’t really care about having access to. It’s .... bizarre.

In any case, we’re due for the big Brexiteer-led bust up / walk away theatre that the Pro-Brexit Spectator has been predicting for June (since January). Problem for Brexiteers is that COVID will likely make it a lot less effective than whatever they envisioned it achieving way back in January.
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sat Jun 06, 2020 11:05 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
A101 wrote:

Of course they can doesn't matter how far the commodity has to travel, if said nation can compete on quality and price point than they will have a completive edge over any domestic industry. the whole idea of the LPF is to restrict UK competitiveness against the EU export market domestically and internationally


The LPF rules are aimed at stopping the UK from undercutting EU companies within the EU. EU exporters already compete with other exporting nations with vastly different regulatory schemes on a global stage, so that’s a moot point.

Want access to the EU market? Play by EU rules. Don’t? Walk away and find new markets.

All we have right now is Brexiteers complaining about EU rules they don’t want, which they are only required to accept if they want access to an EU market they don’t really care about having access to. It’s .... bizarre.

In any case, we’re due for the big Brexiteer-led bust up / walk away theatre that the Pro-Brexit Spectator has been predicting for June (since January). Problem for Brexiteers is that COVID will likely make it a lot less effective than whatever they envisioned it achieving way back in January.


Nothing is a moot point it’s all relevant: the EU wants LPF provisions so the UK dosnt gain a competitive advantage both domestically and internationally, yes while it’s true as it currently stand exports have to compete with each other, the EU dosnt want to add another competitor against the EU. Any imports from the UK to the EU will already meet LPF demands just by abiding by EU import regulations so no big deal.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2004
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Jun 07, 2020 1:32 am

A101 wrote:

Nothing is a moot point it’s all relevant: the EU wants LPF provisions so the UK dosnt gain a competitive advantage both domestically and internationally, yes while it’s true as it currently stand exports have to compete with each other, the EU dosnt want to add another competitor against the EU. Any imports from the UK to the EU will already meet LPF demands just by abiding by EU import regulations so no big deal.


EU companies are already competing with Chinese/Indian/(name country) etc. Even within the EU, Italian and German and British companies are competing among themselves for markets abroad. The addition of a post-Brexit UK to that mix will make a difference to just about no one.

Anyway, taking your argument to it’s logical extension, if it’s just about the UK emerging as a new competitor, it stands to reason that every country will insert LPF demands in their post-Brexit trade agreements with the UK. Why would they want a such a presumably dominant new competitor on the block any more than the EU?

(Hint: they probably won’t. The UK is a relatively minor player on the export/global trade side, and unlike in Europe where it has established a market, UK exports wont make a difference, one way or the other, Brexit propaganda notwithstanding. It’s the reason the benefits of the US trade deal are estimated to be so...limited)

LPF is, and always was, about the UK’s access to the EU market. The EU does not control global trade. Nor can it. All it can control is access to its market.

Consider taking a look at the world as it is, as opposed to what Brexit ideology wants it to look like.
 
AeroVega
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:32 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:50 am

A101 wrote:
Of course they can doesn't matter how far the commodity has to travel, if said nation can compete on quality and price point than they will have a completive edge over any domestic industry. the whole idea of the LPF is to restrict UK competitiveness against the EU export market domestically and internationally


LPF is required to prevent EU industry from relocating to the UK when new EU regulations increase the cost of production. Nobody is forcing LPF on the UK. The UK is free to choose other export markets instead.
 
LJ
Posts: 5289
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Jun 07, 2020 7:04 am

A101 wrote:
If course they can doesn't matter how far the commodity has to travel, if said nation can compete on quality and price point than they will have a completive edge over any domestic industry. the whole idea of the LPF is to restrict UK competitiveness against the EU export market domestically and internationally


That's not the way many of EUs citizens view it. At present there is very strong opposition in Dutch parliament against CETA partially due to fears of not having a level playing field in agriculture and arbitrage (ICS). Any FTA with the UK without a level playing field will be voted down in The Netherlands, regardless how much we like the UK. The EU member states do not care about UKs competitiveness or what the UK wants, they care about their voters (domestic business). You talk about the EU, but forget that EUs position comes from member states.

https://think.ing.com/snaps/the-netherlands-a-first-yes-to-ceta/
 
JJJ
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Jun 07, 2020 7:52 am

A101 wrote:
JJJ wrote:
A101 wrote:

I'd like to know what inside information you have on this to say that all those things are going to happen come the end of the transition period......I need to hedge my bets :rotfl:

Its interesting to note that the UK has roughly the 4th highest minimum wage in the EU unlike some nations that do not even have a mandated national minimum wage.

But if you think the UK will flood the EU with crap then the EU standards for goods must be crap as all goods must meet EU standards when entering the SM :rotfl:


If the UK intends to have worker protections, environmental rules etc. equal or exceeding those of the EU they should have absolutely zero problem in signing up.


No not really under regulatory alignment means the UK must stay in lockstep with the EU.

In other words if the UK exceeds the level of EU law then the EU could if it wanted to take the UK to the ECJ for diverging from EU rules unless the EU did the same remember Level Playing Field it could lock out the EU from the UK market


Regulatory alignment is a sliding scale. You want top access to the market, you'll need to commit. Lesser access comes with lesser regulatory burden. It's not all or nothin, Canada and Norway have both aligned themselves to the EU, but the scale is very different.

Problem is when the UK says one thing in negotiations and another entirely different one in their public plans. State aid, environmental protections, etc. are all part of the level playing field provisions.

An additional problem is the UK has back themselves into a corner regarding the timing. It may well be possible to talk about all these individual issues one by one and negotiate a tailor made approach to each of them, just not before the year's end.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Jun 07, 2020 8:20 am

A101 wrote:
LJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
Your the one telling you know for certain that the UK will change workers rights and environment laws etcetera & etcetera with your inside knowledge you keep say what will happen when I doubt even Boris knows


Let's be honest, when some iin the UK hope that the UK becomes the "Singapore on the Thames", it doesn't help convincing the other party that the UK won't do it. It's not about what the UK curently does, it is about what the UK can do, and the EU doesn't trust the UK, thus wants assurances that the UK continues doing things as they're currently are doing.

Moreover, you can also turn the question. Why not agreeing to a level playing field if your already following it and want it yourself? Please don't use the argument of "sovereignty" as it is a reason not to trust the UK.



Lets be honest here what the EU is really doing by demanding regulatory alignment is protect its current export market to the UK where the EU has a trade surplus, regulatory alignment prevents the UK from independent regulatory action in the future which will restrict the flexibility when it come to negotiating agreements with other nations which in turn limits the level of competition to the UK market for the EU

Just one aspect of regulatory alignment are food standards the EU doesn't really care what the UK eats but with regulatory alignment of UK food standards we will have continued reliance on EU food production system as it increases the cost for other reliable quality food sources such as Asia pacific


If Brexiteers have a problem with the EU having a trade surplus with the UK, all those talks can be ended right now, as it shows a lack understanding the reality. The UK is a service economy and services to do show up the in trade surplus, so obviously a service economy does import goods from industrial and agrarian economies.
 
Olddog
Topic Author
Posts: 1503
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Jun 07, 2020 11:04 am

When you read that, it is easy to understand why the EU wants to spell carefully any treaty with the UK.

Deep enshrined in the french laws we have "All deals must be made in good faith". When you deal with the UK you get the impression that even before writing things down they think how that will renegade their words.....
Signature censored
 
sabenapilot
Posts: 3286
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 6:18 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:15 pm

A101 wrote:
Nothing wrong with wanting to protect your trade, its in your interest to do so, but it also has to be in the UK interest as well,

The UK is out, so the EU should no longer care about any British interests and manifestly the EU doesn't care whether or not what it proposes is also in the UK's interest.
It's taking a maximalistic approach, trying to squeeze as much as it possibly can from a third country in a very weak negotiating position: well done by them, I'd say.
You don't expect the US or the PRC for instance to be any more generous to the UK, do you?
ROTFL.

A101 wrote:
following EU regulations does not mean we have to be in regulatory alignment.

You may think so, but if your negotiating partner thinks otherwise, you will have to face reality and make your mind up at some point: do you somehow give in to his demand (in an elegant way), or do you forgo on dealing with them?
Your sovereign choice...

A101 wrote:
All goods exported from the UK to the EU will follow EU regulations

What you're saying is that as long as the end product meets EU standards, the process under which it is produced should be of no importance to the EU whatsoever..
The EU does not agree, so the choice is yours: you want to sell to the EU, you'll have to set up the entire process according to heir regulations.
Simple demand, simple choice which you're free to make.
That's your precious sovereignty.

A101 wrote:
Just like Australia

Trade between 2 sovereign partners happens on mutually agreed terms; what others may or may not have agreed for their mutual trade is part of different negotiations.
It's the sovereign right of the EU do be demanding far more from a neighbouring third country than it ever did from others, a concept Brexiteers clearly never ever considered to be possible as they have always assumed that what the EU offered to some partner half way accros the globe would automatically also be available to them too...
Well, guess what? It isn't, so better live with it now and accept the consequences of this political miscalculation.

FWIW, it might have been a good idea to have considered this situation prior to launching the adventure called 'Brexit', because the UK was explicitly warned well before all of this started it would be the case, but hey "Once out, we are free to chose whatever sort of arrangement we want to have with the EU", right? ROTFL
The UK was told this claim is utter nonsense in 2016 ('"They'll chance their mind once we vote to leave, because they'll want to sell their wine and cars to us"); in 2017 ("They'll change their mind once we actually trigger article 50 and start negotiating"); in 2018 ("The'll chance their mind once the 2 year deadline looms"); in 2019 ("They'll change their mind once we show our resolve and elect a real Brexiteer as PM"), and now again in 2020 ("They'll chance their mind once we have jumped off the cliff first")...
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different outcome!
It's never going to happen, that should be clear to even the most optimistic Brexiteer.

ElPistolero wrote:
All we have right now is Brexiteers complaining about EU rules they don’t want, which they are only required to accept if they want access to an EU market which they don’t really care about having access to?! It’s .... bizarre.


Indeed: all we get is constant whining about how unfair it is what is being asked by the EU, or how it is infringing on the UK's sovereignty.
The UK is under no obligation whatsoever to accept the demands from the EU and is free to walk away from the talks at any time.
"It's the UK who's left the EU, not the EU who has left the UK", another famous quote from Mr. Barnier.
Leaving the EU means you automatically revert to WTO terms, unless you agree to something else and the initiative for this entirely comes from the UK, hence after 3 extensions we are now in a transitional period and having these exhausting trade talks.
The EU is perfectly fine with whatever outcome the UK desires as "it fully respects the sovereign choice of the UK", but it does not allow "cherry picking": each type of future arrangement is fully available to the UK, yet each one comes with a certain price to pay. The prerogative of setting that price is entirely with the EU however, much to the disbelief of Brexiteers who somehow thought they'd still be setting it as well as if the UK still holds any influence over the EU!
For people completely obsessed with regaining absolute sovereignty through Brexit, they have been blatently ignoring the fact the EU hold equal sovereignty towards the UK after Brexit too.
"you can not be dancing at 2 parties at the same time", was Mr Barniers final quote of this week...
 
JJJ
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:24 pm

sabenapilot wrote:
A101 wrote:
All goods exported from the UK to the EU will follow EU regulations

What you're saying is that as long as the end product meets EU standards, the process under which it is produced should be of no importance to the EU whatsoever..
The EU does not agree, so the choice is yours: you want to sell to the EU, you'll have to set up the entire process according to heir regulations.


Lots of countries do sell with minimal regulatory alignment. Problem is the UK wants to sell to the EU tariff and quota free, with automatic recognition, no customs checks and a host of other goodies which have taken the likes of Norway and Switzerland considerable regulatory alignment to get.

They'll get as far as they're willing to compromise.
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Jun 07, 2020 7:17 pm

ElPistolero wrote:

EU companies are already competing with Chinese/Indian/(name country) etc. Even within the EU, Italian and German and British companies are competing among themselves for markets abroad. The addition of a post-Brexit UK to that mix will make a difference to just about no one.




You can dress it any way you want but demanding LPF/ regulatory alignment is nothing short about EU protectionism, but I agree that competition is occurring in global trade and within the EU itself.
But the main difference between the EU members are all following the same rule book unlike its foreign competitors, and as many on here say the UK is out and will be a foreign competitor, by insisting on LPF/ regulatory alignment is reducing its competitiveness on the domestic/global market

ElPistolero wrote:

Anyway, taking your argument to it’s logical extension, if it’s just about the UK emerging as a new competitor, it stands to reason that every country will insert LPF demands in their post-Brexit trade agreements with the UK. Why would they want a such a presumably dominant new competitor on the block any more than the EU?


Every country already deals on LPF when entering its export market by following the regulations of that nation, when standards differ in its domestic market hence why the cost to produce for the EU market is greater and follows more protocols.

ElPistolero wrote:

Hint: they probably won’t. The UK is a relatively minor player on the export/global trade side, and unlike in Europe where it has established a market, UK exports wont make a difference, one way or the other, Brexit propaganda notwithstanding. It’s the reason the benefits of the US trade deal are estimated to be so...limited)


You may be right....maybe the UK will not grow it’s global trade exports, with being out of the EU: but the UK is free to set its own standards as it sees fit no need for regulatory alignment with the EU which will open the UK up to more competition from global trade.

Is the EU afraid it will no longer be able to compete in the UK without regulatory alignment?

But as most on here keep telling us the UK market overall is insignificant to the EU which would be no great loss to the EU and I for one welcome the new competition into the UK market

ElPistolero wrote:

LPF is, and always was, about the UK’s access to the EU market. The EU does not control global trade. Nor can it. All it can control is access to its market.



EU demand is nothing more than protectionism as the UK as I already have said when goods enter the EU market already abide by EU regulations

ElPistolero wrote:

Consider taking a look at the world as it is, as opposed to what Brexit ideology wants it to look like.



You ever think we have looked, hence the reason we moved out of our comfort zone of the status quo which is the EU

You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Jun 07, 2020 7:22 pm

AeroVega wrote:
A101 wrote:
Of course they can doesn't matter how far the commodity has to travel, if said nation can compete on quality and price point than they will have a completive edge over any domestic industry. the whole idea of the LPF is to restrict UK competitiveness against the EU export market domestically and internationally


LPF is required to prevent EU industry from relocating to the UK when new EU regulations increase the cost of production. Nobody is forcing LPF on the UK. The UK is free to choose other export markets instead.


Following EU regulations is a prerequisite of goods entering the market. The EU demand on regulatory alignment for the UK is nothing short of protectionism in and out of the domestic market
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Jun 07, 2020 7:32 pm

LJ wrote:
A101 wrote:
If course they can doesn't matter how far the commodity has to travel, if said nation can compete on quality and price point than they will have a completive edge over any domestic industry. the whole idea of the LPF is to restrict UK competitiveness against the EU export market domestically and internationally


That's not the way many of EUs citizens view it. At present there is very strong opposition in Dutch parliament against CETA partially due to fears of not having a level playing field in agriculture and arbitrage (ICS). Any FTA with the UK without a level playing field will be voted down in The Netherlands, regardless how much we like the UK. The EU member states do not care about UKs competitiveness or what the UK wants, they care about their voters (domestic business). You talk about the EU, but forget that EUs position comes from member states.

https://think.ing.com/snaps/the-netherlands-a-first-yes-to-ceta/


That’s the whole point each can have different views. We all know the other side always wants to gain the upper hand it’s only natural.

We have not forgotten what makes the EU tick nor members within, remember we were once a part of it not hard to forget.
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Jun 07, 2020 8:13 pm

JJJ wrote:

Regulatory alignment is a sliding scale. You want top access to the market, you'll need to commit. Lesser access comes with lesser regulatory burden. It's not all or nothin, Canada and Norway have both aligned themselves to the EU, but the scale is very different.


Yes I understand what you are saying, but one exception to this is the EU is demanding regulatory alignment just to get a any trade deal which is far different to what you are saying how integrated one nation wants to be with the EU irrespective if the UK wants a Canada style deal or Norway, Michel Barnier has been clear on that since 2017

JJJ wrote:
Problem is when the UK says one thing in negotiations and another entirely different one in their public plans. State aid, environmental protections, etc. are all part of the level playing field provisions.


The Johnson government has been consistent on an independent UK, just like Barnier has been saying we will not accept a deal on any price


JJJ wrote:
An additional problem is the UK has back themselves into a corner regarding the timing. It may well be possible to talk about all these individual issues one by one and negotiate a tailor made approach to each of them, just not before the year's end.



Timing has nothing to with it whilst both side would like to get it done by the end of transition period irrespective if that happens or not there are financial implication either way and not just with the EU. Any trade negotiations with third nations become that little bit harder because no one knows the regulatory environment of the UK because of the impact of remaining in the CU/SM if the transition period was extended. moving from the CU/SM at the end of the years actually provides some clarity hence its good we will know by the end of the month offically
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Jun 07, 2020 8:20 pm

seahawk wrote:


If Brexiteers have a problem with the EU having a trade surplus with the UK, all those talks can be ended right now, as it shows a lack understanding the reality. The UK is a service economy and services to do show up the in trade surplus, so obviously a service economy does import goods from industrial and agrarian economies.


Nope the reality is that imports will have to continue irrespective if they come from the EU or any other region across the globe by reducing the protectionism embedded within the EU structure can help reduce the costs to those on lower incomes, continued regulatory alignment will continue the paying a premium for goods in the UK
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Jun 07, 2020 8:24 pm

Olddog wrote:
When you read that, it is easy to understand why the EU wants to spell carefully any treaty with the UK.

Deep enshrined in the french laws we have "All deals must be made in good faith". When you deal with the UK you get the impression that even before writing things down they think how that will renegade their words.....


Yep protectionism
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Jun 07, 2020 8:26 pm

JJJ wrote:
sabenapilot wrote:
A101 wrote:
All goods exported from the UK to the EU will follow EU regulations

What you're saying is that as long as the end product meets EU standards, the process under which it is produced should be of no importance to the EU whatsoever..
The EU does not agree, so the choice is yours: you want to sell to the EU, you'll have to set up the entire process according to heir regulations.


Lots of countries do sell with minimal regulatory alignment. Problem is the UK wants to sell to the EU tariff and quota free, with automatic recognition, no customs checks and a host of other goodies which have taken the likes of Norway and Switzerland considerable regulatory alignment to get.

They'll get as far as they're willing to compromise.


And the other side of the coin is that the EU wants regulatory alignment with any level of trade deal under the guise of proximity which is a load of bull
 
A101
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Brexit Part 8: the UK government saying what I want is full access and divergence

Sun Jun 07, 2020 9:04 pm

sabenapilot wrote:
A101 wrote:
Nothing wrong with wanting to protect your trade, its in your interest to do so, but it also has to be in the UK interest as well,

The UK is out, so the EU should no longer care about any British interests and manifestly the EU doesn't care whether or not what it proposes is also in the UK's interest.
It's taking a maximalistic approach, trying to squeeze as much as it possibly can from a third country in a very weak negotiating position: well done by them, I'd say.


And where has that approach gotten you say far in negotiations :rotfl:

sabenapilot wrote:
A101 wrote:
following EU regulations does not mean we have to be in regulatory alignment.

You may think so, but if your negotiating partner thinks otherwise, you will have to face reality and make your mind up at some point: do you somehow give in to his demand (in an elegant way), or do you forgo on dealing with them?
Your sovereign choice...


if that's was the case an agreement would have been reached by the second round, but here we are and no agreement looks to be on the horizon

sabenapilot wrote:
A101 wrote:
All goods exported from the UK to the EU will follow EU regulations


What you're saying is that as long as the end product meets EU standards, the process under which it is produced should be of no importance to the EU whatsoever..
The EU does not agree, so the choice is yours: you want to sell to the EU, you'll have to set up the entire process according to heir regulations.
Simple demand, simple choice which you're free to make.
That's your precious sovereignty.


Nope not what I'm say, what I am saying is the product meet EU regulation just like any nation who wants to export to the EU does. what these negotiations are about is the level of trade barriers to be put in place. that's the difference of regulatory alignment or not

sabenapilot wrote:
A101 wrote:
Just like Australia


Trade between 2 sovereign partners happens on mutually agreed terms; what others may or may not have agreed for their mutual trade is part of different negotiations.


lets just point out something you wrote shall we "Trade between 2 sovereign partners happens on mutually agreed terms" you can demand all tou like just like the UK but in the end both have to agree,

sabenapilot wrote:
It's the sovereign right of the EU do be demanding far more from a neighbouring third country than it ever did from others, a concept Brexiteers clearly never ever considered to be possible as they have always assumed that what the EU offered to some partner half way accros the globe would automatically also be available to them too...
Well, guess what? It isn't, so better live with it now and accept the consequences of this political miscalculation.


Demand away

sabenapilot wrote:

FWIW, it might have been a good idea to have considered this situation prior to launching the adventure called 'Brexit', because the UK was explicitly warned well before all of this started it would be the case, but hey "Once out, we are free to chose whatever sort of arrangement we want to have with the EU", right? ROTFL
The UK was told this claim is utter nonsense in 2016 ('"They'll chance their mind once we vote to leave, because they'll want to sell their wine and cars to us"); in 2017 ("They'll change their mind once we actually trigger article 50 and start negotiating"); in 2018 ("The'll chance their mind once the 2 year deadline looms"); in 2019 ("They'll change their mind once we show our resolve and elect a real Brexiteer as PM"), and now again in 2020 ("They'll chance their mind once we have jumped off the cliff first")...
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different outcome!
It's never going to happen, that should be clear to even the most optimistic Brexiteer.


Feel better now that you got that off your chest?...……... for all involved trade is not going to stop its just going to happen on different terms to what they are now and perhaps significantly change how nations interact with each other due to the wake up call of COVID-19

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Revelation, T18 and 66 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