Britain outside the EU

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

No - your assumptions are based on a mindset that’s still within the EU, and we are not. When we were in, then we were obliged to harmonise regulations such that they affected every business whether it was an exporter or not. But we are not in the EU any more. When you sign a trade deal with another country or bloc external to your own, you do so either on the basis of mutual recognition of standards, or else you accept that goods exported to that bloc must meet their standards. You do not, however, have to align your non-exported goods and services with that bloc. So it is entirely possible to sign trade deals in parallel with both the USA and the EU, even for exactly the same goods and services. It is then up to exporters to decide who to sell to.



And this is why your assumptions are faulty - you’re not thinking in terms of trade deals, you’re thinking in terms of realignment in such a way as to make the UK a semi-detached member of the single market, along some variation of thr EEA model perhaps.

It's true, we don't have to follow their regulations, that's why our bottle caps aren't tethered to the bottle like their's...

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Pierre;36187127[B

]It's unlikely the US would demand we only sell hormone treated beef, they may demand we buy it though.
[/B]
in any event let's take that argument at face value.

Do you think it is beyond the capability of our farmers to produce beef for both markets?

And it may be that the US market for hormone-treated beef eclipses the EU market, so we may not care if it compromised our EU exports.

Many positions can be held.

Markets decide.

if it was in the shops and labled as hormone treated and cheap i think many would be interested in buying it ,it's not as if we live off beef, it's a luxury for many.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

It's true, we don't have to follow their regulations, that's why our bottle caps aren't tethered to the bottle like their's...

In many cases ours aren’t, because we’re not in the EU, and the directive that banned them from 3 July 2024 in all EU member states doesn’t apply here - rather neatly making my point, thank you

Of course many manufacturers will use the EU approved caps anyway out of simple efficiency, but because we’re not in the EU, if there is sufficient customer resistance to them, they’re free not to.

I happen to think in this case they’re a pretty good idea.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

No - your assumptions are based on a mindset that’s still within the EU, and we are not. When we were in, then we were obliged to harmonise regulations such that they affected every business whether it was an exporter or not. But we are not in the EU any more. When you sign a trade deal with another country or bloc external to your own, you do so either on the basis of mutual recognition of standards, or else you accept that goods exported to that bloc must meet their standards. You do not, however, have to align your non-exported goods and services with that bloc. So it is entirely possible to sign trade deals in parallel with both the USA and the EU, even for exactly the same goods and services. It is then up to exporters to decide who to sell to.



And this is why your assumptions are faulty - you’re not thinking in terms of trade deals, you’re thinking in terms of realignment in such a way as to make the UK a semi-detached member of the single market, along some variation of thr EEA model perhaps.

I think that your assumptions are faulty - based on a mindset derived from dogma. You assume that our current position is permanent. It is not, it depends on the needs of the economy and the desires of the electorate in future elections.

Originally Posted by ianch99

I think that your assumptions are faulty - based on a mindset derived from dogma. You assume that our current position is permanent. It is not, it depends on the needs of the economy and the desires of the electorate in future elections.

Now you’re sidestepping the question.

Whether or not there’s a move to rejoin the EU in future, that is not in view now. All that is on the table for the next 5-10 years is the question of improved trading relations with the EU and the US. Given that we are not going to rejoin the EU during this parliament (or the next - convince me otherwise) then the question is, what form of trade deal could we make with either EU or the US that would necessarily involve us pivoting away from one of them?

The only form of trade deal that would necessitate that would be a wholly self-defeating regulatory alignment that committed us to adopting regulations on domestic production even on goods that were not for export, and/or restricted us from importing into our market goods that would be banned in another. And the only way that state of affairs could possibly come about would be if we were looking to sign up for some version of association with the EEA that most likely dropped us back in a customs union with the EU.

Sorry but you still haven’t come close to defending your assertion that we have a choice to make, per your earlier statement that a “trade deal with a US on a Trump trajectory that diverges from the need to trade efficiently with the EU requires a clear choice of alignment.”

No trade deal requires such a choice to be made - only negotiations for membership of the EEA would cause that. And it is not necessary to join the EEA in order to work out a sensible trading arrangement with the EU. Which is just as well, because that’s clearly not on the table.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

Now you’re sidestepping the question.

Whether or not there’s a move to rejoin the EU in future, that is not in view now. All that is on the table for the next 5-10 years is the question of improved trading relations with the EU and the US. Given that we are not going to rejoin the EU during this parliament (or the next - convince me otherwise) then the question is, what form of trade deal could we make with either EU or the US that would necessarily involve us pivoting away from one of them?

The only form of trade deal that would necessitate that would be a wholly self-defeating regulatory alignment that committed us to adopting regulations on domestic production even on goods that were not for export, and/or restricted us from importing into our market goods that would be banned in another. And the only way that state of affairs could possibly come about would be if we were looking to sign up for some version of association with the EEA that most likely dropped us back in a customs union with the EU.

Sorry but you still haven’t come close to defending your assertion that we have a choice to make, per your earlier statement that a “trade deal with a US on a Trump trajectory that diverges from the need to trade efficiently with the EU requires a clear choice of alignment.”

No trade deal requires such a choice to be made - only negotiations for membership of the EEA would cause that. And it is not necessary to join the EEA in order to work out a sensible trading arrangement with the EU. Which is just as well, because that’s clearly not on the table.

If the UK wants to mitigate the GDP impact of Brexit, it needs to harmonise, to the best it can, the trade alignment with the EU. Doing this will preclude certain concessions that may be asked by a new US trade deal e.g. food standards. To pretend a ¨cake and eat approach" is possible is disingenuous. Here's a Trump aide saying the same thing:

Britain should align with US on trade rather than pursue EU, says Trump aide

You are also ignoring the facts .. the reality where, as time passes, people who wanting Brexit (for what ever reason) move on and are replaced by those who were disenfranchised in 2016 and have desires to align with the EU (and not the US).

The polling slowly moves away from the promised sunlit uplands and towards pragmatic reality. The promises have not been delivered but the harm has. People will start to ask why are we poorer and, after the trauma of 2016 fades, will demand a return to normality?

Dogma does not drive change in the end .. reality & pragmatism does. As the saying goes: ¨Its the economy, stupid¨*

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid#:~:text=%22The%20econom y%2C%20stupid%22%20is,Bush

Originally Posted by ianch99

If the UK wants to mitigate the GDP impact of Brexit, it needs to harmonise, to the best it can, the trade alignment with the EU. Doing this will preclude certain concessions that may be asked by a new US trade deal e.g. food standards. To pretend a ¨cake and eat approach" is possible is disingenuous. Here's a Trump aide saying the same thing:

Britain should align with US on trade rather than pursue EU, says Trump aide

You are also ignoring the facts .. the reality where, as time passes, people who wanting Brexit (for what ever reason) move on and are replaced by those who were disenfranchised in 2016 and have desires to align with the EU (and not the US).

The polling slowly moves away from the promised sunlit uplands and towards pragmatic reality. The promises have not been delivered but the harm has. People will start to ask why are we poorer and, after the trauma of 2016 fades, will demand a return to normality?

Dogma does not drive change in the end .. reality & pragmatism does. As the saying goes: ¨Its the economy, stupid¨*

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid#:~:text=%22The%20econom y%2C%20stupid%22%20is,Bush

Endlessly repeating the same flawed argument doesn’t improve it.

You still haven’t demonstrated why the UK would have to adopt regulations affecting domestic production and consumption in order to forge a better trade treaty with the EU. The only form of trade deal that would impose some or all of the EU rule book on British producers making goods that aren’t destined for the EU, or British consumers buying goods made anywhere except the EU, would be an EEA/customs union type agreement. And that isn’t a trade deal, it’s membership of an EU-adjacent supranational organisation that isn’t on the table. And such membership wouldn’t just preclude trade deals with the US, it would kill all of them, for the same reasons we weren’t able to make deals with anyone else in the world while we were in the EU.

Whether people have changed their minds about Brexit is neither here nor there at this point. Keir Starmer has already called it, correctly in my view. When pursuing trade deals, it is not necessary to make an either-or choice between the US and the EU. Those that do so are, typically, confusing the US with Donald Trump. Trump may be awful, but he isn’t America, and he won’t be around after 2028, assuming he even lasts that long.

Originally Posted by ianch99

If the UK wants to mitigate the GDP impact of Brexit, it needs to harmonise, to the best it can, the trade alignment with the EU. Doing this will preclude certain concessions that may be asked by a new US trade deal e.g. food standards. To pretend a ¨cake and eat approach" is possible is disingenuous. Here's a Trump aide saying the same thing:

Britain should align with US on trade rather than pursue EU, says Trump aide

You are also ignoring the facts .. the reality where, as time passes, people who wanting Brexit (for what ever reason) move on and are replaced by those who were disenfranchised in 2016 and have desires to align with the EU (and not the US).

The polling slowly moves away from the promised sunlit uplands and towards pragmatic reality. The promises have not been delivered but the harm has. People will start to ask why are we poorer and, after the trauma of 2016 fades, will demand a return to normality?

Dogma does not drive change in the end .. reality & pragmatism does. As the saying goes: ¨Its the economy, stupid¨*

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid#:~:text=%22The%20econom y%2C%20stupid%22%20is,Bush

Dream on, I still want to remain outside of the corrupted EU & I’m not poorer, speak for yourself.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Mick

Dream on, I still want to remain outside of the corrupted EU & I’m not poorer, speak for yourself.

Have to agree being outside it has done me no harm , saying that had no problem with common market. It's the likes of Hungary * telling the UK what it can or cannot do. Perhaps via its courts etc. Don't forget UK would have no hope of rejoining with joining the euro, in my view * or any other European country can be placed here.

[1andrew1]

Won't be easy for Sir Kier.

EU will demand early fish deal in UK reset talks

Requirement among red lines drawn up by Brussels ahead of 2025 negotiations

Brussels is drawing up tough red lines for its coming ‘reset’ negotiations with the UK — including demanding an early deal on fishing rights and repeating the “no cherry-picking” mantra — according to internal discussion documents.

UK ministers, including chancellor Rachel Reeves who will travel to Brussels on Monday, have said they are seeking a “very ambitious” reset of the UK’s security and trading arrangements with the EU when talks begin next year.

However a 19-page working paper setting out EU interests observed there were “limited” economic gains on offer as a result of the UK’s own red lines ruling out rejoining the EU’s single market or customs union, or accepting free movement of people.

“A significant further reduction of trade frictions with a close trading partner, such as the United Kingdom, would be in the interest of the European Union. This, however, would require a different model for co-operation,” it said.

The document circulated to EU members, and seen by the Financial Times, summarised the findings of several weeks of internal EU Commission seminars to discuss policy positions towards the UK on issues such as fishing rights, youth mobility, energy co-operation and trading arrangements.

The paper, prepared by Hungary as it holds the rotating presidency of the bloc, reiterated the “no cherry-picking” principles the European Commission set out in 2017 for dealing with the UK, and said they will remain “core guidance” in the upcoming talks.

It also warns that the UK must agree to a rapid deal on fish — as well as the full implementation of the existing EU-UK agreement including the Windsor framework on post-Brexit trading arrangements for Northern Ireland — if it wants deeper co-operation in other areas.

https://www.ft.com/content/327d7bd9-...a-68fe89b1c105

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Won't be easy for Sir Kier.


........ or accepting free movement of people............

I'd happily throw that on the negotiating table in return for a proper crack down on small boats.


I'd welcome any Poles back with open arms, rather than a boat load of jihadi islamists.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Won't be easy for Sir Kier.


https://www.ft.com/content/327d7bd9-...a-68fe89b1c105

‘No cherry-picking’ insists the EU, as it attempts to pick the cherry that is UK territorial waters and exclusive economic zone. Yet any trade deal is cherry picking by its very definition, as it attempts to give each side something it really wants while avoiding stuff it really doesn’t.

The europhiliac parts of our news media are, I see, still gleefully reporting what the EU wants and demands and expects as if they’re going to be the only ones around the table when it comes time to negotiate. That item is so tilted towards the assumption that the almighty EU must get what it wants it might as well have been written by the greatest Europhile of the lot, Katya Adler of the BBC. Gosh, I almost miss her breathless dispatches from Brussels, for the sheer artistry of her regime apologetics.

The UK is not going to join the EEA, it is not going to rejoin the customs union and it is not going to submit to free movement. Even discussing any one of those things would be politically explosive and would dominate the debate all the way to the Great Labour Wipeout of 2029. They might find some way of oiling the wheels and improving the deal but until the EU stops trying to use the UK as a way of threatening any other member state that might think about leaving, and starts thinking in terms of making a decent, workable trade deal with an important third party, nothing very much is going to change.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Chris

‘No cherry-picking’ insists the EU,

Cherry picking is OK when the UK is the destination of those who claim to be fleeing war torn zones.

[jfman]

At some point - and it won’t be 2029 - someone will credibly float rejoining. The question then is whether it hits a critical mass to become politically palatable by the later end of the 2030s by which time the last referendum will have been almost 25 years earlier.

None of this tinkering round the edges is going to provide a palatable outcome for anyone in the interim.

Leaving was very much a niche political position only 10 years before the referendum. So things can move (relatively) fast.

Originally Posted by Escapee

Cherry picking is OK when the UK is the destination of those who claim to be fleeing war torn zones.

Not sure what the relevance of that comment is, as the refugees/asylum seekers aren’t EU citizens…