[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Just checking your terminology here … do you mean equivalence, or alignment? They’re not the same. Agreed equivalence is a fairly standard aspect of an international trade deal in which both sides agree to accept each other’s standards as equally high even if they differ on the details. Alignment is when one or both sides insist that products imported into their market must comply with their market’s rules.

The reason I’m asking is, Euphiles and remainiacs generally advocate for alignment, because they see it as a way of keeping the UK close to the EU (presumably with the long-term aim of rejoining). Brexiteers oppose alignment, because the whole point of Brexit was to give us freedom to set our own market rules. Alignment with the EU requires us to implement directives set in Brussels, without any longer having the ability to influence the way those rules are formulated. That clearly is a worse democratic position than before.

Mutual acceptance of standards as equivalent, however, is something that neither the UK nor the EU should have any problems with, if they are motivated by willingness to deal and pragmatism as to solutions. In fact I believe mutual acceptance is what the UK has advocated for, not just with regards to NI but broadly in our futures arrangement with the EU. I suspect that this has not been reciprocated and it is the EU that is exhibiting a lack of pragmatism in refusing to allow chilled, processed meats to enter the single market from the UK.

Pierre clearly exposes the Teashop's weasel worded (perfidious?) hypocrisy. The Teashop extols the magnanimity of the EU -whereas that "magnanimity" is no more than kicking the dispute can down the road. The Teashop demands reciprocity of goodwill from the UK but provides no hint of what ground the EU might give. They'll simply accuse us of intransigence in the face of their generosity.

Alignment is a MUST NOT. Equivalence is what they viciously withold because they are punishing the UK.