As far as I know that’s already been suggested by the EU and US and rejected by the UK. Look up “temporary alignment”.
Problem is that EU institutions would be needed to ensure UK compliance, and that isn’t acceptable to Johnson.
As far as I know that’s already been suggested by the EU and US and rejected by the UK. Look up “temporary alignment”.
Problem from the EU's point of view
Let’s say that the UK changes it’s enforcement of regulations but claims that the new regime is consistent with the relevant EU directive. An EU member state disagrees.
Just is the wrong word here. We are in this mess because of politics. UK politics in particular.
Agreed. When I say ‘just’ I mean there doesn’t seem to be a technical or scientific reason for the ban in mince etc, it’s just political.temptar wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:21 amJust is the wrong word here. We are in this mess because of politics. UK politics in particular.
The UK political environment is writ large in this mess.
Marching season is not far off. Inclined to wonder if that is the reason ROI delayed its border restriction lift to 18 July.
Hmm. I think I can understand not wanting to allow third countries to break food standards regulations as a matter of principle, rather than waiting for the inevitable complaint to come in (and then what, suddenly close a border they'd been allowing to operate?).
In reality, the EU is standing firm on key principles of trade, which we would apply if we were on the other side of it. The rules were clearly stated from the start, and the EU has a history of sticking to such rules, not bending them in negotiation, as was pointed out at the start.
even in the context of brexit and the NI border?Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:50 amHmm. I think I can understand not wanting to allow third countries to break food standards regulations as a matter of principle, rather than waiting for the inevitable complaint to come in
by ‘reinforce the stereotype’ I meant that the UK are using stereotyping because they don’t have a leg to stand on otherwise. However it might work, to an extent.IvanV wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:05 amIn reality, the EU is standing firm on key principles of trade, which we would apply if we were on the other side of it. The rules were clearly stated from the start, and the EU has a history of sticking to such rules, not bending them in negotiation, as was pointed out at the start.
The key principles are:
(1) Trade deals have quid pro quo - you don't get the bits you like (free trade in sausages) without giving something back (eg, full alignment to EU standards, including the compliance system - there's a good reason the EU has a compliance system, which is that countries often try to cheat). I have not heard any mention of what we are offering in return. We seem to want a one-way deal "because it's sensible", "because that's what always happened", even though it was we who chose what new rules we wanted to abide by.
(2) You don't get to pick and choose the bits of the single European market you want to be in. It's a bulk deal and comes with obligations. Otherwise lots of countries would leave and escape the obligations that allow the EU to work.
NI is the UK's problem, not someone else's. The government took actions that were bound to aggravate it, under the rules clearly set out from the start. It was a difficulty pointed out from the moment it was seriously suggested we might leave the SEM. And now we have done it and got the inevitable consequences that were pointed out from the start. Why should the EC now help us out, without getting something big back in return?
It is hard to see this being an equal problem for the EU vs the UK nor one where they are equally culpable.plodder wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:02 pmeven in the context of brexit and the NI border?Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:50 am
Hmm. I think I can understand not wanting to allow third countries to break food standards regulations as a matter of principle, rather than waiting for the inevitable complaint to come in
Bollocks, alignment includes adherence to verification and remediation processes. We departed from those.
How does it create wriggle room? "We're definitely honestly in complete alignment (apart from the checks and oversight processes), and therefore refuse to align with the checks and oversight processes so that we're free to make our own rules that will be different but also definitely still in complete alignment" is just daft, and reeks of b.llsh.t.
exactly, thank you.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 5:09 pmI've actually been quite surprised at how much wriggling the UK has got away with so far.
Outside the UK and Ireland do you think this is even making the news? The EU doesn't really give a f.ck about the optics beyond those seen by diplomats of other countries, who will very much be looking at this as the UK breaking agreements and being generally unreliable. The UK really has no leverage. They posturing by the tories is only for a domestic audience.
We don’t trust you to stay in alignment. Your gov has been unilaterally extending grace periods and has also made a huge f.cking song and dance about wanting to diverge on many fronts. They also illegally prorogued their own Parliament, apparently misled your head of State, and regularly threaten to break every agreement they reached with their EU counterparts. Any sane counterparties to an agreement with the UK would be wanting to limit their vulnerability to the chance of British perfidy.