Brexit Consequences

[Woodchopper]

How do you propose they ensure compliance with EU standards if you don't have an agreement to ensure compliance with EU standards?

By already having compliance with EU standards? The ban could apply to the UK when we change our standards.

eta this is what will probably come out in the wash.

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.

[Gfamily]

How do you propose they ensure compliance with EU standards if you don't have an agreement to ensure compliance with EU standards?

By already having compliance with EU standards? The ban could apply to the UK when we change our standards.

eta this is what will probably come out in the wash.

Problem from the EU's point of view
So the EU has to take it on trust that we are following their standards, and has to take any other countries word for it as well (in the absence of specific agreements, what is allowed for one has to be allowed for any)

Problem from the UK's point of view
So we have to tell them when we change our standards; "What sort of independence do you call that?"

[bjn]

Which is pure cakism from the UK Government.

[plodder]

no it’s not, at least not in the short term. for the UK to change its standards requires a change that is entirely visible to the EU. Do you think we can change our regulations in secret?

[plodder]

Or perhaps you think we can change our regulations to something secret? Come on.

[veravista]

Sorry plodder, but do you actually understand how regs work. We have decided to rewrite swathes of stuff so it's nothing to do with the evul EU - why should they take our word on anything, especially as almost everything else we've agreed to has been done with fingers crossed behind our backs. We should either sign up to full alignment or expect to be told to f.ck off

[Woodchopper]

no it’s not, at least not in the short term. for the UK to change its standards requires a change that is entirely visible to the EU. Do you think we can change our regulations in secret?

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.

How are they going to resolve the dispute? The UK has rejected the role of any higher EU authority (NI excluded). So which other body is competent to judge which is interpretation is correct?

[plodder]

That’s further down the line and highlights that the imminent cut-off date is an arbitrary deadline. This is just politics.

[temptar]

That’s further down the line and highlights that the imminent cut-off date is an arbitrary deadline. This is just politics.

Just 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.

[plodder]

That’s further down the line and highlights that the imminent cut-off date is an arbitrary deadline. This is just politics.

Just 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.

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.

Frost has been clever to pick a ‘bendy bananas’ issue to dig his heels in over, although I guess with trade there are many topics that sound trivial on the face of it. But it does reinforce the stereotype that the EU is obsessed with silly trivial rules.

[Bird on a Fire]

That’s further down the line and highlights that the imminent cut-off date is an arbitrary deadline. This is just politics.

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?).

Complaining about arbitrary cutoff dates 5 years after the referendum is a bit silly too. The UK should have come up with a plausible negotiating position before the referendum, or at least triggering article 50. The EU is doing that thing of "oh you forgot your homework again? Well bring it tomorrow or I'll be very cross"

[IvanV]

But it does reinforce the stereotype that the EU is obsessed with silly trivial rules.

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.

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?

[plodder]

That’s further down the line and highlights that the imminent cut-off date is an arbitrary deadline. This is just politics.

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

even in the context of brexit and the NI border?

[plodder]

But it does reinforce the stereotype that the EU is obsessed with silly trivial rules.

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.

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?

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.

The old adage:

If the law is on your side, bang the law as hard as you can
If the truth is on your side, bang the truth
If neither, bang the table.

If you’ve ever worked with a table banger you’ll know they occasionally get results.

[IvanV]

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.

That makes sense.

[Little waster]

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

even in the context of brexit and the NI border?

It is hard to see this being an equal problem for the EU vs the UK nor one where they are equally culpable.

It was the UK who unilaterally chose Brexit and it was the UK who chose to go with this particularly form of hard Brexit, at any point we could have chosen to do as promised in the referendum and plump for the Norwegian or Swiss options but we didn't despite all the warnings that we'd end up exactly where we did.

The EU can also tolerate the status quo a lot better than the UK can, we need them more than they need us and it isn't them who are having to deal with a partially-severed territory.

Therefore it requires the UK to make the concessions needed to get themselves out of the mess they created rather than sh.tting the bed and then complaining that their sheets now smell of poo for some reason and that the American they were hoping was going to leap into bed with them for a quick No-Tariffs-Attached fumble has now gone a bit cold on the whole idea.

[plodder]

doesn’t mean rhetoric isn’t a legitimate negotiating tool. The EU waging a mince war on NI doesn’t give the best optics.

[Bird on a Fire]

But I don't think anybody outside of the UK right wing will see it as "the EU waging a mince war".

From the outside, it very much looks like the UK failing to stick to agreements, and trying to get around obligations made to trading partners.

Which is also "not a good look" if the UK were, hypothetically, trying to negotiate trade deals with other places. They would be better off looking competent and trustworthy, rather than hopelessly muddled and disorganised and trying to sneakily get away with not doing what they said they would because it's all too difficult.

I don't see anybody feeling sorry for the UK and it's self-imposed sausage problems tbh.

[plodder]

it’s not about sympathy, it’s about creating wriggle room. And pointing out that it’s an arbitrary ban when the UK is still in complete alignment is a fair point.

[Gfamily]

it’s not about sympathy, it’s about creating wriggle room. And pointing out that it’s an arbitrary ban when the UK is still in complete alignment is a fair point.

Bollocks, alignment includes adherence to verification and remediation processes. We departed from those.

[Bird on a Fire]

it’s not about sympathy, it’s about creating wriggle room. And pointing out that it’s an arbitrary ban when the UK is still in complete alignment is a fair point.

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.

If somebody is incompetent and untrustworthy you give them less wriggle room, not more. ETA not that the EU is normally in the habit of giving anyone external much wriggle room. I've actually been quite surprised at how much wriggling the UK has got away with so far.

[plodder]

I've actually been quite surprised at how much wriggling the UK has got away with so far.

exactly, thank you.

[WFJ]

doesn’t mean rhetoric isn’t a legitimate negotiating tool. The EU waging a mince war on NI doesn’t give the best optics.

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.

[temptar]

it’s not about sympathy, it’s about creating wriggle room. And pointing out that it’s an arbitrary ban when the UK is still in complete alignment is a fair point.

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.

A bit of good faith from UK side would be nice.

Also someone needs to remind Mr Poots that the voters of Northern Ireland did not vote for ANY Brexit so peacocking around about how what the UK has is not the the Brexit the people of NÍ voted for is a bit wrong.

[TopBadger]

It will be interesting to see what actions the EU take to encourage us to stick to a border in the Irish Sea, this situation has to come to a head eventually.