Britain outside the EU

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I don't see financial services in any of those agreements mentioned in the source site. Switzerland deal includes financial services. Also Brazil, not in the list but:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...on%20in%202020.

Agreed, thanks.
I wan't sure which trade deal's Old Boy's statement "Our new trade deals will include financial services" was referring to as these seem to elude many countries.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Which trade deals do you have in mind, Old Boy?

The government has indicated that they would be looking to include the services sector as part of the new trade deals they negotiate. This was not possible while we were part of the EU.

Talks to improve the agreements with Canada, Norway, Iceland, Mexico and Turkey will commence this year. In the case of Canada, both sides have committed to finalising these negotiations by the end of 2023.

This is a big programme of work which will take a good few years to complete, but clearly the government will prioritise those countries that are likely to allow us to profit the most from including the service sector, including financial services.

The deal we have with Japan includes financial services following recent negotiations, but obviously the rollover agreements do not.

[Sephiroth]

I was impressed with yesterday's BBC Newsnight wherein Mark Urban analysed the UK's relationship with the EU and vice-versa: "our friends in Europe" or a "competitor"? His conclusion was that the EU sees the UK as a competitor and if the UK diverges from their rules not to their liking, the EU can invoke penalty clauses in the treaty.

He also considered it likely that the Guvmin will indeed make us more competitive by chipping away at EU red tape and speculated how much of that the EU will "allow" before triggering treaty clauses.

My takeaway from the segment was that Brussels, backed by 27 countries, was afraid of the UK becoming too successful at the EU's expense. "Level playing field" - except with 27 countries they've got a screwed up idea of what that means.

Sod 'em. Btw, if Scotland goes its own way, we'll be even more competitive.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I was impressed with yesterday's BBC Newsnight wherein Mark Urban analysed the UK's relationship with the EU and vice-versa: "our friends in Europe" or a "competitor"? His conclusion was that the EU sees the UK as a competitor and if the UK diverges from their rules not to their liking, the EU can invoke penalty clauses in the treaty.

He also considered it likely that the Guvmin will indeed make us more competitive by chipping away at EU red tape and speculated how much of that the EU will "allow" before triggering treaty clauses.

My takeaway from the segment was that Brussels, backed by 27 countries, was afraid of the UK becoming too successful at the EU's expense. "Level playing field" - except with 27 countries they've got a screwed up idea of what that means.

Sod 'em. Btw, if Scotland goes its own way, we'll be even more competitive.

We'll save more money.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I was impressed with yesterday's BBC Newsnight wherein Mark Urban analysed the UK's relationship with the EU and vice-versa: "our friends in Europe" or a "competitor"? His conclusion was that the EU sees the UK as a competitor and if the UK diverges from their rules not to their liking, the EU can invoke penalty clauses in the treaty.

He also considered it likely that the Guvmin will indeed make us more competitive by chipping away at EU red tape and speculated how much of that the EU will "allow" before triggering treaty clauses.

My takeaway from the segment was that Brussels, backed by 27 countries, was afraid of the UK becoming too successful at the EU's expense. "Level playing field" - except with 27 countries they've got a screwed up idea of what that means.

Sod 'em. Btw, if Scotland goes its own way, we'll be even more competitive.

Only Germany is allowed to be truly successful. When Germany burdens their businesses with a new rule, eventually it becomes an EU directive and all EU countries are forced to have the same burden.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Only Germany is allowed to be truly successful. When Germany burdens their businesses with a new rule, eventually it becomes an EU directive and all EU countries are forced to have the same burden.

But the UK now allows itself to be successful. Just needs a government that has focus on this.

On the German point, nothing could be truer. They fiddled the Euro by bringing Greece, Portugal and Italy in, despite their deficits, thus devaluing the DM to lower their production costs without increasing the price of Bratwurst.

We need to cut seriously loose from the EU, although interim "closeness" to our enemy is necessary while we line everything up. Yes, Brussels is our enemy in the non-military sense.

[1andrew1]

I think most people have woken up to the fact of increased bureaucracy when exporting to the EU. Indeed, some have given up. But what about that bonfire of EU red tape?

Well, I think most businesses wised up to the fact that there was never such a burden unless you fell into a dark Daily Express rabbit hole and started believing everything it told you to believe. And the Government has now accepted business's viewpoint.

Boris Johnson’s adviser on regulatory reform, Iain Duncan Smith, has said he will not lead a “slash-and-burn exercise” when it comes to changing Britain’s post-Brexit rules.

Duncan Smith’s comments chime with warnings from business leaders that they do not want the UK prime minister to oversee a “bonfire” of EU red tape and instead want to see him focus on ensuring the government becomes “nimbler” at making new rules.

https://www.ft.com/content/63d443ff-...c-8085426e7640

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I think most people have woken up to the fact of increased bureaucracy when exporting to the EU. Indeed, some have given up. But what about that bonfire of EU red tape?

Well, I think most businesses wised up to the fact that there was never such a burden unless you fell into a dark Daily Express rabbit hole and started believing everything it told you to believe. And the Government has now accepted business's viewpoint.

https://www.ft.com/content/63d443ff-...c-8085426e7640

So what was all the level playing field stuff about? The EU wants to stop us being a successful competitor.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

So what was all the level playing field stuff about? The EU wants to stop us being a successful competitor.

Boris now knows better than to pretend the UK's going to be the sweat shop of Europe and meeting that criteria should always be easy for the UK. It might be something we need to challenge the EU on if some EU countries don't follow it too.

I obviously disagree with your second sentence.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Boris now knows better than to pretend the UK's going to be the sweat shop of Europe and meeting that criteria should always be easy for the UK. It might be something we need to challenge the EU on if some EU countries don't follow it too.

I obviously disagree with your second sentence.

I'm shocked at your second sentence The EU wants to stop us being a successful competitor and the evidence stares you in the face.
The fish business - we can't land molluscs; they won't grant financial equivalence even though that equivalence is baked into our current legislation and regulations - to name just two. Plus the treaty terms on which they insisted regarding diversion from their rules. What evidence is there to the contrary of my assertion?

Your first paragraph is plain ridiculous (red highlight). You introduce a straw man of what Boris is not doing, and a far fetched straw man at that.

What a pity that you've got nothing better to say. Sorry.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'm shocked at your second sentence The EU wants to stop us being a successful competitor and the evidence stares you in the face.
The fish business - we can't land molluscs; they won't grant financial equivalence even though that equivalence is baked into our current legislation and regulations - to name just two. Plus the treaty terms on which they insisted regarding diversion from their rules. What evidence is there to the contrary of my assertion?

Your first paragraph is plain ridiculous (red highlight). You introduce a straw man of what Boris is not doing, and a far fetched straw man at that.

What a pity that you've got nothing better to say. Sorry.

We need to understand and accept the new trading reality with the EU, whether it's what Raab etc promised us or not. If anyone believed that the EU would roll over and give the UK a deal that made it economically beneficial to leave then I'm sure that time has long passed.

Regarding molluscs, this comes from a phytosanitary standard for imported bi-valve shellfish that is implemented globally. The US, Japan, etc have the same rules.

Bi-valve shellfish are filter-feeders. They suck in water, extract the nutrients, expel it. As I'm sure you know, eating bad shellfish from poor waters always ends badly. This can be prevented by depuration. When the UK was a member of the EU, it was very happy for the EU to require pre-import depuration of imported shellfish from Class 2 waters. Firstly, because it was a good idea on health grounds, and secondly, it benefited UK bi-valve shellfish producers and penalised those from outside the EU.

However, we were not awake enough to grasp that once outside the EU Customs Union, UK shellfish in the EU would be imported and hence we have to perform certified depuration to enable the shellfish to be exported.

The EU is a big trading partner on our doorstep but also a competitor. Obviously, it will work in its member countries' best interests. Signing a trade deal for manufactured goods which the EU has a surplus on does not grant us equivalence in services which we have a surplus on. If the EU can nab some of that business for itself then it will.

I advise you review my sentence about Boris. No strawman there but let me expand. Boris knows that we're a high-cost, high-value country. There's no point trying to slash legislation and become a low-cost country. Hence, achieving a level-playing field is not a problem for the UK so not a tough point to yield on.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

We need to understand and accept the new trading reality with the EU, whether it's what Raab etc promised us or not. If anyone believed that the EU would roll over and give the UK a deal that made it economically beneficial to leave then I'm sure that time has long passed.

Regarding molluscs, this comes from a phytosanitary standard for imported bi-valve shellfish that is implemented globally. The US, Japan, etc have the same rules.

Bi-valve shellfish are filter-feeders. They suck in water, extract the nutrients, expel it. As I'm sure you know, eating bad shellfish from poor waters always ends badly. This can be prevented by depuration. When the UK was a member of the EU, it was very happy for the EU to require pre-import depuration of imported shellfish from Class 2 waters. Firstly, because it was a good idea on health grounds, and secondly, it benefited UK bi-valve shellfish producers and penalised those from outside the EU.

However, we were not awake enough to grasp that once outside the EU Customs Union, UK shellfish in the EU would be imported and hence we have to perform certified depuration to enable the shellfish to be exported.

The EU is a big trading partner on our doorstep but also a competitor. Obviously, it will work in its member countries' best interests. Signing a trade deal for manufactured goods which the EU has a surplus on does not grant us equivalence in services which we have a surplus on. If the EU can nab some of that business for itself then it will.

I advise you review my sentence about Boris. No strawman there but let me expand. Boris knows that we're a high-cost, high-value country. There's no point trying to slash legislation and become a low-cost country. Hence, achieving a level-playing field is not a problem for the UK so not a tough point to yield on.

One example of the high cost, high value is in Mobile phone waterproofing. The R&D is done here in the UK, whilst manufacture is in Wuhan. Problem is, this does not create many jobs in the UK.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'm shocked at your second sentence The EU wants to stop us being a successful competitor and the evidence stares you in the face.
The fish business - we can't land molluscs; they won't grant financial equivalence even though that equivalence is baked into our current legislation and regulations - to name just two. Plus the treaty terms on which they insisted regarding diversion from their rules. What evidence is there to the contrary of my assertion?

Your first paragraph is plain ridiculous (red highlight). You introduce a straw man of what Boris is not doing, and a far fetched straw man at that.

What a pity that you've got nothing better to say. Sorry.

We specifically rejected equivalence with EU rules to much cheering if I remember - sovereignty and all that. That means we are a third country and are being treated as such.

The EU is by its very nature a protectionist organisation with rules which favour its' member states and businesses within. The UK electorate voted to reject the protection of the single market both at the referendum and subsequent general elections. It's what the majority of the public wanted

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

We need to understand and accept the new trading reality with the EU, whether it's what Raab etc promised us or not. If anyone believed that the EU would roll over and give the UK a deal that made it economically beneficial to leave then I'm sure that time has long passed.

Regarding molluscs, this comes from a phytosanitary standard for imported bi-valve shellfish that is implemented globally. The US, Japan, etc have the same rules.

Bi-valve shellfish are filter-feeders. They suck in water, extract the nutrients, expel it. As I'm sure you know, eating bad shellfish from poor waters always ends badly. This can be prevented by depuration. When the UK was a member of the EU, it was very happy for the EU to require pre-import depuration of imported shellfish from Class 2 waters. Firstly, because it was a good idea on health grounds, and secondly, it benefited UK bi-valve shellfish producers and penalised those from outside the EU.

However, we were not awake enough to grasp that once outside the EU Customs Union, UK shellfish in the EU would be imported and hence we have to perform certified depuration to enable the shellfish to be exported.

The EU is a big trading partner on our doorstep but also a competitor. Obviously, it will work in its member countries' best interests. Signing a trade deal for manufactured goods which the EU has a surplus on does not grant us equivalence in services which we have a surplus on. If the EU can nab some of that business for itself then it will.

I advise you review my sentence about Boris. No strawman there but let me expand. Boris knows that we're a high-cost, high-value country. There's no point trying to slash legislation and become a low-cost country. Hence, achieving a level-playing field is not a problem for the UK so not a tough point to yield on.

The EU catches molluscs in the same waters as we do and it seems illogical that they should impose rules on our catches that are not imposed on theirs.

After all, the EU has made much of the special case of the UK's proximity to the EU. Molluscs should come into that category for obvious reasons. The fact that it doesn't is evidence of the EU's intent on punishing the UK for Brexit.

They are the enemy. Simples - and your advocacy does you no favours.

And your vitriol does you none - they, like us, want the best deals; does that make us their ‘enemy", or just competitors?

We wanted to be a "third country" - we are being treated as one.