Jump to content
Jools

The Positive Brexit Thread

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Where are you reading this - or more to the point which unhinged unbalanced commentator is saying that? It's rubbish. 

Obviously the the EU don't want us importing the totemic 'chlorinated'  chicken and repackaging it as somehow 'UK' for EU markets. Same as we wouldn't want 'horse meat' relabelled as beef.  

The point is if we are to have a trade deal with the EU - implying we sell stuff to EU without all the usual WTO barriers and non-tariff barriers - there has to be some commonality of agreed standards.

If we want to go on WTO rules then fine - the EU will treat us same as China - seafood - well that could be very very dodgy and so on!

 

So why all the fuss about convergence? It's not some lone unhinged unbalanced commentator saying this.

And by the way, why is it the first response of nearly all  remainers to start hurling insults around?

Sorry, the EU have no business telling us what we can & cannot import. If they don't believe the certificates of origin of any chicken we sell them that's up to them, they don't have to buy it. Does any other country outside the EU do this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Oh, oh!!! I think I know this one, thanks to Paul Moy. Isn't it all to to with Brown selling off our gold reserves 20 years ago?!

In other related news the government's own estimate of its Brexit jewel in the crown, a trade deal with the US, is that it will increase GDP by a whopping 0.2 per cent, while its estimate for Brexit overall (other economists have it even worse) is that it will hit GDP by between -4.9 per cent and -7.6 per cent. Absolute genius.

Least surprising news of the year:


The No. 10 spokesman says that [the dire but if anything understated warning of just what damage Brexit will do to the UK economy] was an analysis conducted by a previous government. The government now wants to carry out an alternative analysis.

I bet it does. And posters here claimed it was the EU that had a habit of keeping on asking the question until it got the answer it needed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the situation on standards then?   

The EU appear to be saying that in order to have no checks we must manufacture to E U standards, import at the same and have it all overseen by the ECJ. They also want is to maintain environmental etc standards.

This would make free trade agreements with elsewhere problematic as they might not like our standards or like the idea of the border checks that would be required.

What is the solution (except agreeing with the EU position)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

If you sell something into the EU you will have to meet their standards. If you don't you won't. Same as every other country including our EU friends.

That's quite correct and rightly so. But the measures go a step further than that. If we accepted these rules then the EU would have the right to tell us, a sovereign and independent country, what standards we would have to implement for stuff that we use here. 

The EU do not tell the US or China what standards have to exist within those countries. The whole point of leaving is that we become self-governing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Least surprising news of the year:


The No. 10 spokesman says that [the dire but if anything understated warning of just what damage Brexit will do to the UK economy] was an analysis conducted by a previous government. The government now wants to carry out an alternative analysis.

I bet it does. And posters here claimed it was the EU that had a habit of keeping on asking the question until it got the answer it needed...

Over what time period?

Also I believe that's less growth predicted over what it might have been, is it not?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

 

So why all the fuss about convergence? It's not some lone unhinged unbalanced commentator saying this.

And by the way, why is it the first response of nearly all  remainers to start hurling insults around?

Sorry, the EU have no business telling us what we can & cannot import. If they don't believe the certificates of origin of any chicken we sell them that's up to them, they don't have to buy it. Does any other country outside the EU do this?

 

What Yellow Fever hasn't told you is that stuff we import and use for ourselves have to meet EU standards. It's a way to screw us if they desire and no self-respecting country would accept these conditions. Though I think Switzerland has. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

What Yellow Fever hasn't told you is that stuff we import and use for ourselves have to meet EU standards. It's a way to screw us if they desire and no self-respecting country would accept these conditions. Though I think Switzerland has. 

No, of course no seld-respecting would accept this.

The problem with your point is that you just made it up, it is what is commonly called a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really quite amazed at the 'tin hat' paranoia here on the EU's opening negotiating position. It is obvious surely that if you want an ambitious free trade deal with 'the same benefits' as before i.e zero tariffs, quotas and checks then you will have to all but fully align. 

The more you want to to diverge the less access or more barriers you will have. You could do it on sector basis.

If you want to diverge completely under WTO (let's call it Australian for the gullible) deal then you can do what you like.

Relax

It a sliding scale depending how much damage you wish to impose upon our economy. Choose.

 

Oh - for the sake of argument did you see in US position that if we do a US deal we would be disallowed to do one with a 'non-market'; economy i.e. China. Duh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

Over what time period?

Also I believe that's less growth predicted over what it might have been, is it not?

 

The Treasury forecasts that somehow are now questionable were for a 15-year period, and, yes, the forecasts envisaged a reduction in expected GDP growth, not that GDP would fall by those percentages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BigFish said:

No, of course no seld-respecting would accept this.

The problem with your point is that you just made it up, it is what is commonly called a lie.

I agree - some have no sense of balance or more disingenuously are just trying to read everything in the blackest possible light. Say's more about them and their motivations than the EU or the actual negotiations.

There will be compromises.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

The EU appear to be saying that in order to have no checks we must manufacture to E U standards, import at the same and have it all overseen by the ECJ. They also want is to maintain environmental etc standards.

No it doesn't, and the EU arn't saying that anyway.

Two things are getting confused here, deliberately by the government and their fellow travellers. The EU has no problem with the UK consuming chlorine washed chicken, hormone raised beef and GMO now we have left. It is British consumers who are objecting. They have no problem with the UK having substandard products, dangerous toys and dodgy electricals. They just don't want the UK to export these to the EU.

What the EU wants is to protect the single market. This took a lot of effort and time to create, much from the UK, and they will not accept a deal that trashes this. If the UK wants a triple zero trade deal (tariffs, quotas, dumping) they will accept the obligations that comes with this. If not, the UK will have to accept the constraints on trade that comes with being a third party.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BigFish said:

No it doesn't, and the EU arn't saying that anyway.

Two things are getting confused here, deliberately by the government and their fellow travellers. The EU has no problem with the UK consuming chlorine washed chicken, hormone raised beef and GMO now we have left. It is British consumers who are objecting. They have no problem with the UK having substandard products, dangerous toys and dodgy electricals. They just don't want the UK to export these to the EU.

What the EU wants is to protect the single market. This took a lot of effort and time to create, much from the UK, and they will not accept a deal that trashes this. If the UK wants a triple zero trade deal (tariffs, quotas, dumping) they will accept the obligations that comes with this. If not, the UK will have to accept the constraints on trade that comes with being a third party.

We're not exporting those products. All our products must be certified as to origin surely.

If they don't believe our certification procedures then I don't see how we could do a deal with them anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

We're not exporting those products. All our products must be certified as to origin surely.

If they don't believe our certification procedures then I don't see how we could do a deal with them anyway.

Except that under the genius renegotiating skills of B. Johnson esq. Northern Ireland is now, as the EU wanted all along,  to all intents and purposes staying in the single market, with no border between it and Eire.

So the border, with all the necessary checks will be in the Irish Sea. Except, again, that according to B. Johnson esq., despite having agreed to that, including the checks, there will be no such checks, raising the threat that the UK will in effect be able to export such products into the de facto single market area ( N.I.) and the de jure area (Eire).

So, if you were the EU would you trust him to keep to the agreement he has signed or would you expect him to break it?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, BigFish said:

No it doesn't, and the EU arn't saying that anyway.

Two things are getting confused here, deliberately by the government and their fellow travellers. The EU has no problem with the UK consuming chlorine washed chicken, hormone raised beef and GMO now we have left. It is British consumers who are objecting. They have no problem with the UK having substandard products, dangerous toys and dodgy electricals. They just don't want the UK to export these to the EU.

What the EU wants is to protect the single market. This took a lot of effort and time to create, much from the UK, and they will not accept a deal that trashes this. If the UK wants a triple zero trade deal (tariffs, quotas, dumping) they will accept the obligations that comes with this. If not, the UK will have to accept the constraints on trade that comes with being a third party.

It's you who is telling the big lie here. Fortunately we have adults in charge at the moment so I very much doubt the EU cherry-picking will work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Except that under the genius renegotiating skills of B. Johnson esq. Northern Ireland is now, as the EU wanted all along,  to all intents and purposes staying in the single market, with no border between it and Eire.

So the border, with all the necessary checks will be in the Irish Sea. Except, again, that according to B. Johnson esq., despite having agreed to that, including the checks, there will be no such checks, raising the threat that the UK will in effect be able to export such products into the de facto single market area ( N.I.) and the de jure area (Eire).

So, if you were the EU would you trust him to keep to the agreement he has signed or would you expect him to break it?

The only thing that will be in the Irish Sea will be the stupid agreement that the EU thinks we will follow. I just hope its all bio-degradable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, BigFish said:

No it doesn't, and the EU arn't saying that anyway.

Two things are getting confused here, deliberately by the government and their fellow travellers. The EU has no problem with the UK consuming chlorine washed chicken, hormone raised beef and GMO now we have left. It is British consumers who are objecting. They have no problem with the UK having substandard products, dangerous toys and dodgy electricals. They just don't want the UK to export these to the EU.

What the EU wants is to protect the single market. This took a lot of effort and time to create, much from the UK, and they will not accept a deal that trashes this. If the UK wants a triple zero trade deal (tariffs, quotas, dumping) they will accept the obligations that comes with this. If not, the UK will have to accept the constraints on trade that comes with being a third party.

So what are these obligations?

Is the EU happy to see us import and manufacture to whatever standard we like and still see us having unrestricted trade?  I doubt it as this would clearly threaten the Single market 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

So what are these obligations?

Is the EU happy to see us import and manufacture to whatever standard we like and still see us having unrestricted trade?  I doubt it as this would clearly threaten the Single market 

 

Exactly. What the Remainers want to play down is how the EU could have a stranglehold on the UK economy if we allow the EU to set our standards.

Take a possible example. We want to do a free trade deal with Morocco and import cheaper oranges than those from Spain. The EU has the ability to invent some spurious standard that prevents us from doing a deal. Now imagine the tens of thousands of products that the EU could do this to - and if we protest all they have to do is pass the case to the European Courts for a ruling that could take years to process through the system during which time our FTAs are sitting on ice. 

This is like handing a gun to your biggest competitor and inviting them to shoot you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Exactly. What the Remainers want to play down is how the EU could have a stranglehold on the UK economy if we allow the EU to set our standards.

Take a possible example. We want to do a free trade deal with Morocco and import cheaper oranges than those from Spain. The EU has the ability to invent some spurious standard that prevents us from doing a deal. Now imagine the tens of thousands of products that the EU could do this to - and if we protest all they have to do is pass the case to the European Courts for a ruling that could take years to process through the system during which time our FTAs are sitting on ice. 

This is like handing a gun to your biggest competitor and inviting them to shoot you.

I'm not go got argue any further. It's mindless and pointless.Too many people spouting irrelevant political spin.

However - I suspect the irony of your last comment escaped you. 

"This is like handing a gun to your biggest competitor and inviting them to shoot you."

Unfortunately you shot yourself good and proper first. Get used to being a small fish in a big wide world. It exactly what many said would happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Is the EU happy to see us import and manufacture to whatever standard we like and still see us having unrestricted trade?  I doubt it as this would clearly threaten the Single market

Are you and @Rock The Boat having a contest to be the biggest idiot on this thread?

It is simple, the UK has the sovereignity to import and manufacture to what ever standard you like. The EU has the sovereignity to block imports from the UK that doesn't meet EU regulations. If the UK wants free trade access to the the single market it will be obliged to follow these. The more the UK diverges the greater number of barriers will be in place. That, and there will need to be a mechanism to enforce this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ron obvious said:

We're not exporting those products. All our products must be certified as to origin surely.

If they don't believe our certification procedures then I don't see how we could do a deal with them anyway.

Yes, but they will need checking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Yes, but they will need checking.

And so will stuff we import from them. So?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to t'internet it is Cornish for vagina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

And so will stuff we import from them. So?

And do you now see why all this extra red-tape would highly likely mean the death knell of any industry using the just in time networks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Herman said:

And do you now see why all this extra red-tape would highly likely mean the death knell of any industry using the just in time networks?

The idea of carrying zero stock has always seemed idiotic to me. No resilience, totally knackered by any interruption in supply.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ron obvious said:

And so will stuff we import from them. So?

Extra costs in terms of time, money & bureaucracy that isn't there already. Greater friction at borders, queues etc.

All negative. Yes it hits the EU too, but it hits the UK proportionally harder.

This is the choice the UK government is making, not one the EU is imposing

That is the So What

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

The idea of carrying zero stock has always seemed idiotic to me. No resilience, totally knackered by any interruption in supply.

 

It looks a strange idea but financially these companies are saving on not having to have warehouses and extra logistics. Factory to factory is cost effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigFish said:

Are you and @Rock The Boat having a contest to be the biggest idiot on this thread?

It is simple, the UK has the sovereignity to import and manufacture to what ever standard you like. The EU has the sovereignity to block imports from the UK that doesn't meet EU regulations. If the UK wants free trade access to the the single market it will be obliged to follow these. The more the UK diverges the greater number of barriers will be in place. That, and there will need to be a mechanism to enforce this.

Now in what way was the abuse called for?

I asked a question as I wanted opinions on it.  I am not making a point either way. Instead I am genuinely interested in the answer.  I appreciate that on this regard I may now be alone on this thread 

So, it seems that we have established then that for the EU the price to be paid for frictionless trade is that we observe EU standards.   This is at odds where you said it was not the EU demanding that we meet EU standards but the UK consumer.

Perhaps we can try again in a more respectful manner.   Is it your understanding that the EUs current stance is that if we want no checks then we must obey EU standards both in what we make and in what we import (whether for UK consumption or re export)?  If so, do you think that if we cannot agree with this then the level of checks will be based on the level of divergence ?.

Do the EU want us to accept ECJ jurisdiction I'm trade disputes, if not what are they proposing as an alternative (if anything)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...