The Positive Brexit Thread

[littleyellowbirdie 2,546]

Just now, benchwarmer said:

No, but presumably the pre-existing terms and conditions of these trade deals were in accordance with EU rules, otherwise they would be invalid.  Therefore the UK and its partners would, in order to abide by the terms and conditions, have to abide by these same rules, whether the UK chooses to call them EU rules or not.

That seems to be a really strong presumption given the lengths the government went to to keep the UK outside the jurisdiction of EU rules as much as possible in the future. The only reference I could think of that might apply would be CE certification, which has been replaced in UK law by UKCA certification; I would expect that all of the new trade agreements have replaced CE with UKCA if there is any reference made.

 

[Yellow Fever 3,772]

26 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That seems to be a really strong presumption given the lengths the government went to to keep the UK outside the jurisdiction of EU rules as much as possible in the future. The only reference I could think of that might apply would be CE certification, which has been replaced in UK law by UKCA certification; I would expect that all of the new trade agreements have replaced CE with UKCA if there is any reference made.

 

I think you'll find that these 'non-tariff'' barriers like the requirement for local certification still exists i.e. KSS for Korea (seen that, been there, done it). UKCA is just yet another nonsense for the Brexit purists. Should of stuck with CE. It's one of the long term (many decades) aims of the CPTTP to come to common standards (Does that mean for instance we'll compromise on say Indonesian standards here in the UK - what a Brexity hoot).

I'm sadly having to deal with 3TG at present (EU has sensible rules - USA is a nightmare if you sell to SEC companies). UK is nowhere. It's those big trading blocks again.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[littleyellowbirdie 2,546]

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

I think you'll find that these 'non-tariff'' barriers like the requirement for local certification still exists i.e. KSS for Korea (seen that been, been there, done it). UKCA is just yet another nonsense for the Brexit purists. Should of stuck with CE. It's one of the long term (many decades) aims of the CPTTP to come to common standards (Does that mean for instance we'll compromise on say Indonesian standards here in the UK - what a Brexity hoot).

I'm sadly having to deal with 3TG at present (EU has sensible rules - USA is a nightmare if you sell to SEC companies). UK is nowhere. It's those big trading blocks again.

CE standards are in part legitimate standards for safety, but they're also steered to some extent to give EU products a competitive advantage in the EU market. As non-members of the EU, it makes sense to have our own standards in our own hands going forward, especially as we will be playing a part in forging new standards in a large trading bloc like CPTPP, as you point out., which would be impossible if we'd legally tied ourselves to standards outside of our influence.

[Herman 9,756]

It makes no financial sense to have different standards to our main market. 

[Yellow Fever 3,772]

7 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

CE standards are in part legitimate standards for safety, but they're also steered to some extent to give EU products a competitive advantage in the EU market. As non-members of the EU, it makes sense to have our own standards in our own hands going forward, especially as we will be playing a part in forging new standards in a large trading bloc like CPTPP, as you point out., which would be impossible if we'd legally tied ourselves to standards outside of our influence.

Erh - the SM had to agree to use common standards (the CE) if its to work effectively. CPTTP will also have to agree to common standards too if it is to work effectively and remove non-tariff barriers as stated - and oddly that will ultimately mean creating such bodies as the commission to oversee such common standards all over again.

So ultimately you will have swapped Brussels for say Jakarta if CPTTP is to be anything other than an also ran or talking shop. Hmm. 

Edited February 3, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[littleyellowbirdie 2,546]

6 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Erh - the SM had to agree to use common standards (the CE) if its to work effectively. CPTTP will also have to agree to common standards too if it is to work effectively and remove non-tariff barriers as stated - and oddly that will ultimately mean creating such bodies as the commission to oversee such common standards 

So ultimately you will have swapped Brussels for say Jakarta if CPTTP is to be anything other than an also ran or talking shop. Hmm. 

What do you have against Indonesia? Why do you think Indonesia will be leading the debate on shared standards to open up CPTPP markets to each other rather than larger CPTPP economies like Japan, Australia, Canada, or us?

Somewhere down the line there will be negotiations between CPTPP and the EU where we'll have a chance to put our interests into the mix; that opportunity won't be there if we've given up having a say at all on the standards we adhere to.

Edited February 3, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,772]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What do you have against Indonesia? Why do you think Indonesia will be leading the debate on shared standards to open up CPTPP markets to each other rather than larger CPTPP economies like Japan, Australia, Canada, or us?

Somewhere down the line there will be negotiations between CPTPP and the EU where we'll have a chance to put our interests into the mix; that opportunity won't be there if we've given up having a say at all on the standards we adhere to.

I'm not getting into arguments over this - for me it's a real issue that cost real money of only for UKCA labelling. I use Indonesia simply as an example because it's the largest potential market by way of population in the CPTTP (and it not even in the CPTTP yet!).

Of course if the CPTTP doesn't eventually agree to common standards then really it won't amount to very much (as most agree) as compared the EU, US or indeed the separate Japanese, Korean markets etc. CPTTP wont add much 'added' value if at all over what we've already got. That's why nobody really in it's current very limited state treats it too seriously unless you think of it an embryonic 'EU'.

I think it only includes one or two extra countries beyond the trade deals that we have anyway.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,546]

12 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I'm not getting into arguments over this - for me it's a real issue that cost real money of only for UKCA labelling. I use Indonesia simply as an example because it's the largest potential market by way of population in the CPTTP (and it not even in the CPTTP yet!).

Of course if the CPTTP doesn't eventually agree to common standards then really it won't amount to very much (as most agree) as compared the EU, US or indeed the separate Japanese, Korean markets etc. CPTTP wont add much 'added' value if at all over what we've already got. That's why nobody really in it's current very limited state treats it too seriously unless you think of it an embryonic 'EU'.

I think it only includes one or two extra countries beyond the trade deals that we have anyway.

When we joined the EEC it had nine members; there is plenty of scope for growth of the CPTPP membership and plenty of countries already expressing interest in joining, which will be to our benefit.

The CPTPP has already agreed to common standards on lots of things for both goods and services.It's referred to by experts in the field as the highest quality and most ambitious multilateral trade agreement outside of the EU in what has been agreed already.

I wouldn't presume to argue at the inconvenience of the added bureaucratic challenges regarding considering UKCA on top of CE for anyone involved in imports and exports with the EU; you still have to offset that against the much higher long-term cost of giving up any say in any standards anywhere, including in your own country.

Edited February 3, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[sonyc 5,511]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/05/it-is-hard-to-admit-being-wrong-but-brexit-voters-are-doing-so-in-droves?

 

Very decent article. The comments are also telling especially the point about non economic arguments and how the sovereignty argument could have been made and looked so much different.

This article helps answer the recent debate here on what Remain could have done better and how people are changing their minds and on what basis. A glimpse too to improved re-alignment under Labour. 

 

Ps. If the UK government had been a company, we've been mis-sold.

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by sonyc

[Herman 9,756]

1 hour ago, sonyc said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/05/it-is-hard-to-admit-being-wrong-but-brexit-voters-are-doing-so-in-droves?

 

Very decent article. The comments are also telling especially the point about non economic arguments and how the sovereignty argument could have been made and looked so much different.

This article helps answer the recent debate here on what Remain could have done better and how people are changing their minds and on what basis. A glimpse too to improved re-alignment under Labour. 

 

Ps. If the UK government had been a company, we've been mis-sold.

 

Thanks for that, a very good read as usual from Mr Keegan. The comments are also ,on the whole, worth reading.👍

[littleyellowbirdie 2,546]

6 hours ago, sonyc said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/05/it-is-hard-to-admit-being-wrong-but-brexit-voters-are-doing-so-in-droves?

 

Very decent article. The comments are also telling especially the point about non economic arguments and how the sovereignty argument could have been made and looked so much different.

This article helps answer the recent debate here on what Remain could have done better and how people are changing their minds and on what basis. A glimpse too to improved re-alignment under Labour. 

 

Ps. If the UK government had been a company, we've been mis-sold.

 

Other than keeping first past the post, Labour and the Conservatives have always taken great pains to ensure they can't be held to those standards. In fact, advertising standards specifically exempts political campaigning from a requirement to be factually accurate.

https://www.asa.org.uk/type/non_broadcast/code_section/07.html

[horsefly 4,298]

On 03/02/2023 at 11:12, Yellow Fever said:

I'm not getting into arguments over this - for me it's a real issue that cost real money of only for UKCA labelling. I use Indonesia simply as an example because it's the largest potential market by way of population in the CPTTP (and it not even in the CPTTP yet!).

Of course if the CPTTP doesn't eventually agree to common standards then really it won't amount to very much (as most agree) as compared the EU, US or indeed the separate Japanese, Korean markets etc. CPTTP wont add much 'added' value if at all over what we've already got. That's why nobody really in it's current very limited state treats it too seriously unless you think of it an embryonic 'EU'.

I think it only includes one or two extra countries beyond the trade deals that we have anyway.

The government's own reports on the CPTTP show it to be absolutely paltry when compared to membership of the EU.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,546]

7 hours ago, horsefly said:

The government's own reports on the CPTTP show it to be absolutely paltry when compared to membership of the EU.

A pointless comparison given we're out of the EU with no viable avenue back.

And the EU was pretty paltry compared to its size now back when we joined.

Edit: Had an interesting little dig through World Bank figures just now. Apparently back in 1972, the six founding members of the EEC were about 20% of global GDP. Now, the 27 EU members represent about 17% of global GDP.

Edited February 6, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

6 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

A pointless comparison given we're out of the EU with no viable avenue back.

And the EU was pretty paltry compared to its size now back when we joined.

Edit: Had an interesting little dig through World Bank figures just now. Apparently back in 1972, the six founding members of the EEC were about 20% of global GDP. Now, the 27 EU members represent about 17% of global GDP.

Man uses statistics to show how stupid he is.

 

[Herman 9,756]

26 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

Man uses statistics to show how stupid he is.

 

I wonder what could have happened in those over-50 years??😀

[littleyellowbirdie 2,546]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

I wonder what could have happened in those over-50 years??😀

What happened was that economies outside Europe grew far faster than European economies, as illustrated by the fact that 6 European economies, featuring some of the biggest such as Germany, France, and Italy, was a bigger share of global GDP in 1972 than those 6 plus 21 other European economies in 2023.

Edited February 6, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,772]

11 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What happened was that economies outside Europe grew far faster than European economies, as illustrated by the fact that 6 European economies, featuring some of the biggest such as Germany, France, and Italy, was a bigger share of global GDP in 1972 than those 6 plus 21 other European economies in 2023.

This is a silly, misused, dare I say abused statistic meant to hoodwink the 'dim' as you call them. It's in the same league as the  £350M/week and straight from the Brexiteer rat pack.

By comparison the US share of world GDP has dropped from c. 35% (40% in 1960) to 25% in the same time (anybody can look up exact figures). Must be an economic basket case. The answer is obviously the rise of emerging economies - China notably recently vastly inflating world GBP much faster then even very successful western economies can grow so diluting their share.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,546]

38 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

This is a silly, misused, dare I say abused statistic meant to hoodwink the 'dim' as you call them. It's in the same league as the  £350M/week and straight from the Brexiteer rat pack.

By comparison the US share of world GDP has dropped from c. 35% (40% in 1960) to 25% in the same time (anybody can look up exact figures). Must be an economic basket case. The answer is obviously the rise of emerging economies - China notably recently vastly inflating world GBP much faster then even very successful western economies can grow so diluting their share.

 

Regarding the US, it's still a huge player, but it has opened up globally over that time as well, reflecting the need to as other important economies have grown.

The observation about the EEC/EU share of GDP over time was straight from World Bank data comparing the combined GDP of the six members in 1972 to the EU's own statement that it now represents about 1/6 of the global economy. Feel free to check for yourself if you have doubts about whether there's anything misleading about the observation. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD

Arguably, it could be said that those determined to push the belief that failure outside the EU is inevitable are abusing statistics by pointing out that CPTPP is smaller than the EU as a share of global GDP while pretending there are no prospects for future growth and evolution of CPTPP should be ignored in that evaluation, even as third parties register their interest in joining CPTPP.

Having checked my posting history, your accusation over historic use of the word dim is unfounded, and also ironic given your pathological need to ascribe lower intelligence to leave voters as the overriding explanation of why we left the EU.

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,756]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What happened was that economies outside Europe grew far faster than European economies, as illustrated by the fact that 6 European economies, featuring some of the biggest such as Germany, France, and Italy, was a bigger share of global GDP in 1972 than those 6 plus 21 other European economies in 2023.

It's the natural cycle of world economics over 5 decades. Some countries slow, some stabilise (Germany, Japan) , some go bust (Argentina, Venezuela) and some boom (China, Korea.) 

[Yellow Fever 3,772]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Regarding the US, it's still a huge player, but it has opened up globally over that time as well, reflecting the need to as other important economies have grown.

The observation about the EEC/EU share of GDP over time was straight from World Bank data comparing the combined GDP of the six members in 1972 to the EU's own statement that it now represents about 1/6 of the global economy. Feel free to check for yourself if you have doubts about whether there's anything misleading about the observation. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD

Arguably, it could be said that those determined to push the belief that failure outside the EU is inevitable are abusing statistics by pointing out that CPTPP is smaller than the EU as a share of global GDP while pretending there are no prospects for future growth and evolution of CPTPP should be ignored in that evaluation, even as third parties register their interest in joining CPTPP.

Having checked my posting history, your accusation over historic use of the word dim is unfounded, and also ironic given your pathological need to ascribe lower intelligence to leave voters as the overriding explanation of why we left the EU.

 

Ok - I'm not going to go back and check but somebody used the word dim.

However  - you are equally wrong as I always noted a factual correlation between education and age with Brexit - indeed argued against IQ.

However - on CPTTP which you endlessly champion (or TTP as it was) - CPTTP was just the late Abe scrambling to hold something together after the US pulled out. Nobody thinks the CPTTC or indeed a US trade deal in any way makes up for the loss of the EU SM. It was simply Truss (of infamy) trying to find some positive out of Brexit and clutching at straws. 

On the statistics - if you wish to quote them you must always place them in context else you are simply misleading. In terms of potential global growth Africa is probably the place.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,546]

49 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Ok - I'm not going to go back and check but somebody used the word dim.

However  - you are equally wrong as I always noted a factual correlation between education and age with Brexit - indeed argued against IQ.

However - on CPTTP which you endlessly champion (or TTP as it was) - CPTTP was just the late Abe scrambling to hold something together after the US pulled out. Nobody thinks the CPTTC or indeed a US trade deal in any way makes up for the loss of the EU SM. It was simply Truss (of infamy) trying to find some positive out of Brexit and clutching at straws. 

On the statistics - if you wish to quote them you must always place them in context else you are simply misleading. In terms of potential global growth Africa is probably the place.

Abe felt CPTPP was worth holding together even without the US; most importantly, he successfully convinced the other prospective members that there was value in pursuing it.

It's not championing CPTPP to point out its merits as a bloc. It seems nye on certain that we'll be members soon, so much so that Taiwan has sent a delegation to the UK to discuss its application for CPTPP as if we were already CPTPP members.

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2023/02/06/2003793811

Your point about Africa is an excellent one and possibly an avenue for CPTPP to explore for further expansion now that the organisation has broken out of the mould of being a regional bloc, if indeed it ever was given how huge the Pacific is.

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,756]

What is it about the CPTPP.? Anyone would think you are running it. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,546]

1 minute ago, Herman said:

What is it about the CPTPP.? Anyone would think you are running it. 

It's a new trade bloc representing 13% of global GDP even without us, which is only a few years old, which we're in the final stages of joining; it's going to be central to rebuilding UK trade post-Brexit, whoever's running the country after the next election.

 

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

18 minutes ago, Herman said:

What is it about the CPTPP.? Anyone would think you are running it. 

He's  a believer.  Not only that , he knows. Nobody else does, except  Dean Smith. Once Birdyo says its so, it is so. No arguments. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,546]

8 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

He's  a believer.  Not only that , he knows. Nobody else does, except  Dean Smith. Once Birdyo says its so, it is so. No arguments. 

You've just jumped in with another irrelevance  on an unrelated thread focussing on yet another personal attack on me. I haven''t seen much in the way of caveats to all your definite but unsupported statement attacking Dean Smith for an alleged disinterest in actually delivering success for Norwich and himself either.

Nor is my interest in CPTPP about belief, any more than my interest in the success of Dean Smith, David Wagner, or any other Norwich manager is about belief; it's about wishing the best outcomes for things that I value and thinking about how they might be achieved instead of constantly tearing them down with pointless denigration.

Edited February 6, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You've just jumped in with another irrelevance  on an unrelated thread focussing on yet another personal attack on me. I haven''t seen much in the way of caveats to all your definite but unsupported statement attacking Dean Smith for a disinterest in actually delivering success for Norwich and himself either.

Nor is my interest in CPTPP about belief, any more than my interes in the success of Dean Smith or now David Wagner is about belief; it's about wishing the best outcomes for things that I value instead of constantly tearing them down with pointless denigration.

Fish on !!😂😂

[Yellow Fever 3,772]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's a new trade bloc representing 13% of global GDP even without us, which is only a few years old, which we're in the final stages of joining; it's going to be central to rebuilding UK trade post-Brexit, whoever's running the country after the next election.

 

I find this argument a bit like joining the WTO (with all its sovereignty busting dispute settlement mechanisms) representing 98% of world trade.

Devil is in the detail completely lost on most of population simply used to be able to just send an item to say Germany in the post without almost a thought as to customs.

Most of he CPTTP we already have 'deals' with (EU rolled over).

Issue is never really tariffs - all companies can deal with these or factor them in - easy - but non-tariff barriers which can be very bureaucratic and very awkward to navigate. Rules of origin, customs authorizations (and records), standards let alone local vagaries of business practice and requirements (languages, official documents, local representation and on & on). CPTTP will take 50 years if ever to sort itself out (very disparate countries unlikely to agree on common standards in anything) - to become seamless like the EU SM. Else it will only be superficial rather like our 'commonwealth' - lots of good words but not a lot of tangible results.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,546]

26 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I find this argument a bit like joining the WTO (with all its sovereignty busting dispute settlement mechanisms) representing 98% of world trade.

Devil is in the detail completely lost on most of population simply used to be able to just send an item to say Germany in the post without almost a thought as to customs.

Most of he CPTTP we already have 'deals' with (EU rolled over).

Issue is never really tariffs - all companies can deal with these or factor them in - easy - but non-tariff barriers which can be very bureaucratic and very awkward to navigate. Rules of origin, customs authorizations (and records), standards let alone local vagaries of business practice and requirements (languages, official documents, local representation and on & on). CPTTP will take 50 years if ever to sort itself out (very disparate countries unlikely to agree on common standards in anything) - to become seamless like the EU SM. Else it will only be superficial rather like our 'commonwealth' - lots of good words but not a lot of tangible results.

The content of deals with other CPTPP countries isn't the same as the content of CPTPP. Nor is the EU seamless, however much it has reduced trade barriers over the years. Nor is the CPTPP to be judged purely on its current size given that membership is likely to grow.

If you want to argue about sovereignty regarding multilateral agreements, argue with someone who voted to leave the EU on that basis instead of me, who didn't even vote to leave at all; I'm fine with the concept of multilateral treaties.

Also, why are you putting 'deals' in quotations? That's your choice of words. Call them FTAs if you have issues with the term.

Also, the Commonwealth is the proper name of an officially recognised international body; there's no need for quotation marks other than to demonstrate a degree of petulance on your part.

[Surfer 1,547]

On 03/02/2023 at 02:13, littleyellowbirdie said:

That seems to be a really strong presumption given the lengths the government went to to keep the UK outside the jurisdiction of EU rules as much as possible in the future. The only reference I could think of that might apply would be CE certification, which has been replaced in UK law by UKCA certification; I would expect that all of the new trade agreements have replaced CE with UKCA if there is any reference made.

 

Well, there's the rub. The political branch of the UK government may have decided that they want nothing to do with CE, but the administrative branch has done nothing to create the UK alternative.

As an importer, I know this first hand as we have been trying since March 2022 to get an answer to a simple question "how do I proceed to obtain certification to sell our medical device to the UK market" "Will you accept FDA, or CE or do we need to obtain a reconstituted BSI / new UKCA certification?"

Nobody seemed to know, not even the appropriate medical expert at the UK Dept of Trade. 

p.s. The answer just revealed was - the UK Gov will accept a CE mark until July 2023 (since pushed back to July 2024). At that time we will need the new UKCA mark, but they still can't tell you how to get that. 

So what should our company do? We'll just have to sell to countries that will accept our product and pass over the UK for a European HQ. All over "sovereignty/immigrants" rants from prats like Farage. 

 

 

[Yellow Fever 3,772]

10 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The content of deals with other CPTPP countries isn't the same as the content of CPTPP. Nor is the EU seamless, however much it has reduced trade barriers over the years. Nor is the CPTPP to be judged purely on its current size given that membership is likely to grow.

If you want to argue about sovereignty regarding multilateral agreements, argue with someone who voted to leave the EU on that basis instead of me, who didn't even vote to leave at all; I'm fine with the concept of multilateral treaties.

Also, why are you putting 'deals' in quotations? That's your choice of words. Call them FTAs if you have issues with the term.

Also, the Commonwealth is the proper name of an officially recognised international body; there's no need for quotation marks other than to demonstrate a degree of petulance on your part.

This comment added nothing - why post ?