BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
The UK’s original position was the same or better access to the Single Market, do you really think that was a conundrum for the EU.spatt77 said:
trade! but its at the expense of the single market! its a conundrum!rick_chasey said:
What in it for the EU?spatt77 said:
yes, but you can diverge whilst having mutual recognition!surrey_commuter said:
Can you not see the importance of the UK’s insisting on the right to diverge?spatt77 said:It is standard in a FTA for "mutual recognition" to exist, we build something one way, the EU builds it another way, both are "well built" but in both ways it is built to a certain set of standards! The UK doesn't really want to diverge from this but cant be taking the standards from Brussels. Does Canada or South Korea take its rules from Brussels? `Im still waiting to hear about the EU wanting to Keep fishing rights exactly the same!
The UK accounts for 7% of all EU exports whilst the EU accounts for 47% of the UK’s exports. If you consider how bother per you are with having a FTA with then logic suggests they are seven times less bothered.0 -
Let me make sure I'm understanding you right. You think trade with the UK is more valuable to the EU than the single market?spatt77 said:
trade! but its at the expense of the single market! its a conundrum!rick_chasey said:
What in it for the EU?spatt77 said:
yes, but you can diverge whilst having mutual recognition!surrey_commuter said:
Can you not see the importance of the UK’s insisting on the right to diverge?spatt77 said:It is standard in a FTA for "mutual recognition" to exist, we build something one way, the EU builds it another way, both are "well built" but in both ways it is built to a certain set of standards! The UK doesn't really want to diverge from this but cant be taking the standards from Brussels. Does Canada or South Korea take its rules from Brussels? `Im still waiting to hear about the EU wanting to Keep fishing rights exactly the same!
0 -
All of that may be true, as well as the fact were their largest single trading partner trade will continue with or without a FTA, will it be more difficult for both sides, undoubtedly! , but the UK government is just asking for something the EU has already given to other countries without any of the conditions currently being asked of us! The conundrum for the EU is political vs financial! The EU doesn't even have jurisdiction over the German courts now so its a bit rich for the EU to ask for jurisdiction over a non EU membersurrey_commuter said:
The UK’s original position was the same or better access to the Single Market, do you really think that was a conundrum for the EU.spatt77 said:
trade! but its at the expense of the single market! its a conundrum!rick_chasey said:
What in it for the EU?spatt77 said:
yes, but you can diverge whilst having mutual recognition!surrey_commuter said:
Can you not see the importance of the UK’s insisting on the right to diverge?spatt77 said:It is standard in a FTA for "mutual recognition" to exist, we build something one way, the EU builds it another way, both are "well built" but in both ways it is built to a certain set of standards! The UK doesn't really want to diverge from this but cant be taking the standards from Brussels. Does Canada or South Korea take its rules from Brussels? `Im still waiting to hear about the EU wanting to Keep fishing rights exactly the same!
The UK accounts for 7% of all EU exports whilst the EU accounts for 47% of the UK’s exports. If you consider how bother per you are with having a FTA with then logic suggests they are seven times less bothered.0 -
What the UK Govt is asking for has not been given to another country.
Yes trade will continue but it will reduce and will cut economic growth by 0.5 - 1% per annum. Doesn’t sound like much but compounded over 20 years makes a huge difference0 -
"will cut economic growth by 0.5 - 1% per"? you don`t KNOW this? you may be right , you may be wrong but don`t know it! its a prediction based on taking no action to mitigate this! South Korea and Canada both have FTA`s with the EU where the ECJ has no jurisdiction over them.surrey_commuter said:What the UK Govt is asking for has not been given to another country.
Yes trade will continue but it will reduce and will cut economic growth by 0.5 - 1% per annum. Doesn’t sound like much but compounded over 20 years makes a huge difference0 -
@spatt77,spatt77 said:
"will cut economic growth by 0.5 - 1% per"? you don`t KNOW this? you may be right , you may be wrong but don`t know it! its a prediction based on taking no action to mitigate this! South Korea and Canada both have FTA`s with the EU where the ECJ has no jurisdiction over them.surrey_commuter said:What the UK Govt is asking for has not been given to another country.
Yes trade will continue but it will reduce and will cut economic growth by 0.5 - 1% per annum. Doesn’t sound like much but compounded over 20 years makes a huge difference
I would not bother with bershire_commuter. Since 2016 he has seriously underperformed in his job, thus bonuses have been tiny if he has had any, and missed out on at least one promotion because of this. He has got increasingly bitter this year because his job is now at risk and that was before C19.
All this because he called the referendum result wrong, has been unable to accept the result and adjust his positions to reflect reality rather this preconceived ideas of what will happen.
He still thinks the pre-referendum prediction that each household will be £4300 worse off by 2030 is accurate
You'd be better putting your energies into reply to a credible poster0 -
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favoured its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.0 -
Imagine a flat stage of the TdF and a team announcing they are not going to ride in the peloton and one member of their team announcing he is going to ride solo. None of the pundits will know the outcome but all be very certain of what will happen.spatt77 said:
"will cut economic growth by 0.5 - 1% per"? you don`t KNOW this? you may be right , you may be wrong but don`t know it! its a prediction based on taking no action to mitigate this! South Korea and Canada both have FTA`s with the EU where the ECJ has no jurisdiction over them.surrey_commuter said:What the UK Govt is asking for has not been given to another country.
Yes trade will continue but it will reduce and will cut economic growth by 0.5 - 1% per annum. Doesn’t sound like much but compounded over 20 years makes a huge difference
Ask yourself this - why are the people who don’t care about an FTA with the EU so convinced that an FTA with the USA is the route to the land of milk and honey?
What you you do to mitigate no deal?
They are not legal proceedings, the EU is under no obligation to give us stuff due to precedent, we have to persuade them by showing the benefits to them of different courses of action.0 -
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.0 -
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.0 -
India just wasn't prepared to walk away from the table.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favoured its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
Wouldn't want them buying a used car for me.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
it takes ore than a little extrapolation to equate the EU's negotiation practises with gunboat diplomacyTheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favoured its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.0 -
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.0 -
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
0 -
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.0 -
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.0 -
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty0 -
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
0 -
Products for export to the EU must be produced in a federally registered establishment and for meat products an EU approved facility.TheBigBean said:
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
If a product is genetically modified (GM) or contains ingredients that are GM, the GM trait must be authorized in the EU and the product must be labelled accordingly.
I imagine the 6% not covered and the 5 years phasing in would be insurmountable problems for us.
looking at this superficial level of detail I don't think the UK is ready to do a deal with the EU and possibly with anybody. I think the public needs to feel some pain before they will be ready to accept the compromises necessary for any meaningful trade deal.0 -
The UK doesn't have a problem meeting EU regulations on exports to the EU. Its issue is meeting EU regulations on exports to other countries or for stuff consumed within the UK. I think you have misunderstood this.surrey_commuter said:
Products for export to the EU must be produced in a federally registered establishment and for meat products an EU approved facility.TheBigBean said:
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
If a product is genetically modified (GM) or contains ingredients that are GM, the GM trait must be authorized in the EU and the product must be labelled accordingly.
I imagine the 6% not covered and the 5 years phasing in would be insurmountable problems for us.
looking at this superficial level of detail I don't think the UK is ready to do a deal with the EU and possibly with anybody. I think the public needs to feel some pain before they will be ready to accept the compromises necessary for any meaningful trade deal.
For example, I don't mind meeting US finance regulations on a deal in the US. I can just about stomach it on a deal involving US dollars. It really irritates me on a deal that has nothing to do with the US at all.
0 -
It upset BNP Paribas too, rather, though perhaps for different reasons...;)TheBigBean said:
The UK doesn't have a problem meeting EU regulations on exports to the EU. Its issue is meeting EU regulations on exports to other countries or for stuff consumed within the UK. I think you have misunderstood this.surrey_commuter said:
Products for export to the EU must be produced in a federally registered establishment and for meat products an EU approved facility.TheBigBean said:
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
If a product is genetically modified (GM) or contains ingredients that are GM, the GM trait must be authorized in the EU and the product must be labelled accordingly.
I imagine the 6% not covered and the 5 years phasing in would be insurmountable problems for us.
looking at this superficial level of detail I don't think the UK is ready to do a deal with the EU and possibly with anybody. I think the public needs to feel some pain before they will be ready to accept the compromises necessary for any meaningful trade deal.
For example, I don't mind meeting US finance regulations on a deal in the US. I can just about stomach it on a deal involving US dollars. It really irritates me on a deal that has nothing to do with the US at all.0 -
my understanding is that most industries will produce to one standard which is why we want the UK standard to be accepted by the EU now and forever more, ie to be able to move away from the current standard which by definition meets EU regsTheBigBean said:
The UK doesn't have a problem meeting EU regulations on exports to the EU. Its issue is meeting EU regulations on exports to other countries or for stuff consumed within the UK. I think you have misunderstood this.surrey_commuter said:
Products for export to the EU must be produced in a federally registered establishment and for meat products an EU approved facility.TheBigBean said:
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
If a product is genetically modified (GM) or contains ingredients that are GM, the GM trait must be authorized in the EU and the product must be labelled accordingly.
I imagine the 6% not covered and the 5 years phasing in would be insurmountable problems for us.
looking at this superficial level of detail I don't think the UK is ready to do a deal with the EU and possibly with anybody. I think the public needs to feel some pain before they will be ready to accept the compromises necessary for any meaningful trade deal.
For example, I don't mind meeting US finance regulations on a deal in the US. I can just about stomach it on a deal involving US dollars. It really irritates me on a deal that has nothing to do with the US at all.
my other point is that if we allowed farmers to inject hormones into beef I would expect the EU to impose a blanket ban rather than allow certification on non-injected beef0 -
You could be forgiven for thinking that the simplest deal in the history of deals actually won’t be simple in the slightest.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Apply your understanding to cars and you'll realise how little you really understand. This does not surprise mesurrey_commuter said:
my understanding is that most industries will produce to one standard which is why we want the UK standard to be accepted by the EU now and forever more, ie to be able to move away from the current standard which by definition meets EU regsTheBigBean said:
The UK doesn't have a problem meeting EU regulations on exports to the EU. Its issue is meeting EU regulations on exports to other countries or for stuff consumed within the UK. I think you have misunderstood this.surrey_commuter said:
Products for export to the EU must be produced in a federally registered establishment and for meat products an EU approved facility.TheBigBean said:
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
If a product is genetically modified (GM) or contains ingredients that are GM, the GM trait must be authorized in the EU and the product must be labelled accordingly.
I imagine the 6% not covered and the 5 years phasing in would be insurmountable problems for us.
looking at this superficial level of detail I don't think the UK is ready to do a deal with the EU and possibly with anybody. I think the public needs to feel some pain before they will be ready to accept the compromises necessary for any meaningful trade deal.
For example, I don't mind meeting US finance regulations on a deal in the US. I can just about stomach it on a deal involving US dollars. It really irritates me on a deal that has nothing to do with the US at all.
my other point is that if we allowed farmers to inject hormones into beef I would expect the EU to impose a blanket ban rather than allow certification on non-injected beef0 -
I think you have misunderstood the whole issue. The UK is happy conform to EU standards to sell to the EU.surrey_commuter said:
my understanding is that most industries will produce to one standard which is why we want the UK standard to be accepted by the EU now and forever more, ie to be able to move away from the current standard which by definition meets EU regsTheBigBean said:
The UK doesn't have a problem meeting EU regulations on exports to the EU. Its issue is meeting EU regulations on exports to other countries or for stuff consumed within the UK. I think you have misunderstood this.surrey_commuter said:
Products for export to the EU must be produced in a federally registered establishment and for meat products an EU approved facility.TheBigBean said:
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
If a product is genetically modified (GM) or contains ingredients that are GM, the GM trait must be authorized in the EU and the product must be labelled accordingly.
I imagine the 6% not covered and the 5 years phasing in would be insurmountable problems for us.
looking at this superficial level of detail I don't think the UK is ready to do a deal with the EU and possibly with anybody. I think the public needs to feel some pain before they will be ready to accept the compromises necessary for any meaningful trade deal.
For example, I don't mind meeting US finance regulations on a deal in the US. I can just about stomach it on a deal involving US dollars. It really irritates me on a deal that has nothing to do with the US at all.
my other point is that if we allowed farmers to inject hormones into beef I would expect the EU to impose a blanket ban rather than allow certification on non-injected beef
I will spell this out once more and then give up.
Let's say the UK wanted to become a world leader in autonomous vehicles. It therefore decided to deregulate specifically in this area. As a result, the UK could see a boom in autonomous vehicle making and then sell them around the world. It would not sell them to the EU. It would not want to sell them to EU. It would not expect the EU to accept them as meeting EU standards because they won't. The UK however would not want the EU to block this deregulation as it has no impact on the EU.
0 -
It has an impact on the friction of existing trade with the EU.TheBigBean said:
I think you have misunderstood the whole issue. The UK is happy conform to EU standards to sell to the EU.surrey_commuter said:
my understanding is that most industries will produce to one standard which is why we want the UK standard to be accepted by the EU now and forever more, ie to be able to move away from the current standard which by definition meets EU regsTheBigBean said:
The UK doesn't have a problem meeting EU regulations on exports to the EU. Its issue is meeting EU regulations on exports to other countries or for stuff consumed within the UK. I think you have misunderstood this.surrey_commuter said:
Products for export to the EU must be produced in a federally registered establishment and for meat products an EU approved facility.TheBigBean said:
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
If a product is genetically modified (GM) or contains ingredients that are GM, the GM trait must be authorized in the EU and the product must be labelled accordingly.
I imagine the 6% not covered and the 5 years phasing in would be insurmountable problems for us.
looking at this superficial level of detail I don't think the UK is ready to do a deal with the EU and possibly with anybody. I think the public needs to feel some pain before they will be ready to accept the compromises necessary for any meaningful trade deal.
For example, I don't mind meeting US finance regulations on a deal in the US. I can just about stomach it on a deal involving US dollars. It really irritates me on a deal that has nothing to do with the US at all.
my other point is that if we allowed farmers to inject hormones into beef I would expect the EU to impose a blanket ban rather than allow certification on non-injected beef
I will spell this out once more and then give up.
Let's say the UK wanted to become a world leader in autonomous vehicles. It therefore decided to deregulate specifically in this area. As a result, the UK could see a boom in autonomous vehicle making and then sell them around the world. It would not sell them to the EU. It would not want to sell them to EU. It would not expect the EU to accept them as meeting EU standards because they won't. The UK however would not want the EU to block this deregulation as it has no impact on the EU.
So, say, all the cars are built to an EU standard; then fewer papers and inspections will need to be made by EU and British customs officers regarding the trade of cars, right?
All cars adhere, so all cars will waived through.
Divergence means friction as now they'd have to check the cars have the right spec as there's a chance they may not be.0 -
Is that very different from US FDA being able to inspect UK drugs manufacturing facilities without notice? If they want to sell to the USA, they need to abide by those regulations, if they don't, I guess they wouldn't.rick_chasey said:
It has an impact on the friction of existing trade with the EU.TheBigBean said:
I think you have misunderstood the whole issue. The UK is happy conform to EU standards to sell to the EU.surrey_commuter said:
my understanding is that most industries will produce to one standard which is why we want the UK standard to be accepted by the EU now and forever more, ie to be able to move away from the current standard which by definition meets EU regsTheBigBean said:
The UK doesn't have a problem meeting EU regulations on exports to the EU. Its issue is meeting EU regulations on exports to other countries or for stuff consumed within the UK. I think you have misunderstood this.surrey_commuter said:
Products for export to the EU must be produced in a federally registered establishment and for meat products an EU approved facility.TheBigBean said:
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
If a product is genetically modified (GM) or contains ingredients that are GM, the GM trait must be authorized in the EU and the product must be labelled accordingly.
I imagine the 6% not covered and the 5 years phasing in would be insurmountable problems for us.
looking at this superficial level of detail I don't think the UK is ready to do a deal with the EU and possibly with anybody. I think the public needs to feel some pain before they will be ready to accept the compromises necessary for any meaningful trade deal.
For example, I don't mind meeting US finance regulations on a deal in the US. I can just about stomach it on a deal involving US dollars. It really irritates me on a deal that has nothing to do with the US at all.
my other point is that if we allowed farmers to inject hormones into beef I would expect the EU to impose a blanket ban rather than allow certification on non-injected beef
I will spell this out once more and then give up.
Let's say the UK wanted to become a world leader in autonomous vehicles. It therefore decided to deregulate specifically in this area. As a result, the UK could see a boom in autonomous vehicle making and then sell them around the world. It would not sell them to the EU. It would not want to sell them to EU. It would not expect the EU to accept them as meeting EU standards because they won't. The UK however would not want the EU to block this deregulation as it has no impact on the EU.
So, say, all the cars are built to an EU standard; then fewer papers and inspections will need to be made by EU and British customs officers regarding the trade of cars, right?
All cars adhere, so all cars will waived through.
Divergence means friction as now they'd have to check the cars have the right spec as there's a chance they may not be.0 -
Imagine a flat stage of the TdF and a team announcing they are not going to ride in the peloton and one member of their team announcing he is going to ride solo. None of the pundits will know the outcome but all be very certain of what will happen.surrey_commuter said:
Imagine a flat stage of the TdF and a team announcing they are not going to ride in the peloton and one member of their team announcing he is going to ride solo. None of the pundits will know the outcome but all be very certain of what will happen.spatt77 said:
"will cut economic growth by 0.5 - 1% per"? you don`t KNOW this? you may be right , you may be wrong but don`t know it! its a prediction based on taking no action to mitigate this! South Korea and Canada both have FTA`s with the EU where the ECJ has no jurisdiction over them.surrey_commuter said:What the UK Govt is asking for has not been given to another country.
Yes trade will continue but it will reduce and will cut economic growth by 0.5 - 1% per annum. Doesn’t sound like much but compounded over 20 years makes a huge difference
Ask yourself this - why are the people who don’t care about an FTA with the EU so convinced that an FTA with the USA is the route to the land of milk and honey?
What you you do to mitigate no deal?
They are not legal proceedings, the EU is under no obligation to give us stuff due to precedent, we have to persuade them by showing the benefits to them of different courses of action.
What like Chris Froome`s stage 19 of the 2018 Giro? where he broke away with 80kms to go on his own went on to win?
0 -
The UK wouldn't be exporting autonomous vehicles to the EU, so there would be no friction. The ones with steering wheels would be waved through.rick_chasey said:
It has an impact on the friction of existing trade with the EU.TheBigBean said:
I think you have misunderstood the whole issue. The UK is happy conform to EU standards to sell to the EU.surrey_commuter said:
my understanding is that most industries will produce to one standard which is why we want the UK standard to be accepted by the EU now and forever more, ie to be able to move away from the current standard which by definition meets EU regsTheBigBean said:
The UK doesn't have a problem meeting EU regulations on exports to the EU. Its issue is meeting EU regulations on exports to other countries or for stuff consumed within the UK. I think you have misunderstood this.surrey_commuter said:
Products for export to the EU must be produced in a federally registered establishment and for meat products an EU approved facility.TheBigBean said:
Like what?surrey_commuter said:
very accessible (and short) summary of CETA from Canada viewpointTheBigBean said:
I believe under CETA the EU gets to inspect Canadian farmers.surrey_commuter said:
not got an angle. I have no idea if the level of trust exists (anywhere) to make inspection a viable option. The only inspection examples I can think of are just non-tariff barriers to tradeTheBigBean said:
Presumably either a blanket ban or some form of inspection. I don't think the latter is an attempt to regulate a country though if that is your angle.surrey_commuter said:
genuine question alert - if we said that US chicken that met a certain standard could be exported to the UK how would we ensure that? Surely it would work like our beef exports and there would be a blanket ban.TheBigBean said:
Trying to regulate beyond its jurisdiction should be evidence against the value of the EU. Or to put it another way, if the UK were still in the EU, I would not want the EU to bully countries around the world into accepting its oversight. It's what the US does, it is what China is now doing, and the EU should be trying to be better than that.rick_chasey said:
I don't really follow the logic.TheBigBean said:
If you extrapolate from this a little. Do you think the UK's colonial period should be criticised? After all, it was simply getting deals that favour its own objectives. Or do you think that there are moral obligations that come with having power?rick_chasey said:
It is to be criticised for trying to get a deal that favours their own objectives?TheBigBean said:
I find that argument disappointing and it gets trotted out fairly regularly. If the EU is behaving in an unreasonable way, then it is not something to be admired, and dismissed, it is something to be criticised.rick_chasey said:
Not so much reasonable, as entirely predictable.TheBigBean said:
One of the problems with the Brexit debate is that it has become so tribal that when the EU asks for identical fishing terms and dynamic regulation, one side of the debate thinks they are being reasonable.pblakeney said:I've never read anything like that, especially put so simply.
If so, sod it. No deal.
What were people expecting?
Heavens above.
EU isn't killing anyone. The UK is doing this entirely voluntarily with consequences that were very predictable. Why should the EU want a competitor on the doorstep that undermines the integrity of the union?
If you believe in the value of the EU, then why would you want an important state leaving it be a success?
It's like you don't get that logic.
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/business-entreprise/sectors-secteurs/agri.aspx?lang=eng
Huge improvement on what they had before but along way off what we are used to.
There is a bunch of stuff that we would claim breach of sovreignty
If a product is genetically modified (GM) or contains ingredients that are GM, the GM trait must be authorized in the EU and the product must be labelled accordingly.
I imagine the 6% not covered and the 5 years phasing in would be insurmountable problems for us.
looking at this superficial level of detail I don't think the UK is ready to do a deal with the EU and possibly with anybody. I think the public needs to feel some pain before they will be ready to accept the compromises necessary for any meaningful trade deal.
For example, I don't mind meeting US finance regulations on a deal in the US. I can just about stomach it on a deal involving US dollars. It really irritates me on a deal that has nothing to do with the US at all.
my other point is that if we allowed farmers to inject hormones into beef I would expect the EU to impose a blanket ban rather than allow certification on non-injected beef
I will spell this out once more and then give up.
Let's say the UK wanted to become a world leader in autonomous vehicles. It therefore decided to deregulate specifically in this area. As a result, the UK could see a boom in autonomous vehicle making and then sell them around the world. It would not sell them to the EU. It would not want to sell them to EU. It would not expect the EU to accept them as meeting EU standards because they won't. The UK however would not want the EU to block this deregulation as it has no impact on the EU.
So, say, all the cars are built to an EU standard; then fewer papers and inspections will need to be made by EU and British customs officers regarding the trade of cars, right?
All cars adhere, so all cars will waived through.
Divergence means friction as now they'd have to check the cars have the right spec as there's a chance they may not be.
How does the EU know the ones with steering wheels aren't autonomous vehicles dressed up for show? It doesn't, perhaps it would start inspecting them, but that is the same with meeting any other regulation. Imagine the UK promised to meet some vehicle emission tests, how would the EU know at the border?0 -
I remember that as having what could be described as a couple of hills at least.spatt77 said:
Imagine a flat stage of the TdF and a team announcing they are not going to ride in the peloton and one member of their team announcing he is going to ride solo. None of the pundits will know the outcome but all be very certain of what will happen.surrey_commuter said:
Imagine a flat stage of the TdF and a team announcing they are not going to ride in the peloton and one member of their team announcing he is going to ride solo. None of the pundits will know the outcome but all be very certain of what will happen.spatt77 said:
"will cut economic growth by 0.5 - 1% per"? you don`t KNOW this? you may be right , you may be wrong but don`t know it! its a prediction based on taking no action to mitigate this! South Korea and Canada both have FTA`s with the EU where the ECJ has no jurisdiction over them.surrey_commuter said:What the UK Govt is asking for has not been given to another country.
Yes trade will continue but it will reduce and will cut economic growth by 0.5 - 1% per annum. Doesn’t sound like much but compounded over 20 years makes a huge difference
Ask yourself this - why are the people who don’t care about an FTA with the EU so convinced that an FTA with the USA is the route to the land of milk and honey?
What you you do to mitigate no deal?
They are not legal proceedings, the EU is under no obligation to give us stuff due to precedent, we have to persuade them by showing the benefits to them of different courses of action.
What like Chris Froome`s stage 19 of the 2018 Giro? where he broke away with 80kms to go on his own went on to win?0
