UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Because in trade negotiations, it’s a major factor.

So everything about the EU is based upon bullying weaker countries?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I didn’t dismiss the idea of the US as a trading partner, just pointed out the obvious that they will be in a stronger negotiating position - you seem to regard this statement as negative, whilst I view it as realistic.

You also seem to think it’s a one way street, and that we have all the negotiating strengths with other countries- I hope you’re right, but I doubt it; they’re not going to accept anything other than trade deals which benefit them.

Still waiting for you to tell exactly what goods and services we are going to export to the USA, China, and India that will make up for 44% of our exports to the EU (around £350 billion)...

I don't have to, because once again (sigh) I have to remind you that we will still be trading with the EU after Brexit, so much, if not all of that 44% of exports will still exist. To read your posts, anyone would think that we were shutting up shop altogether with the EU, which is just ludicrous and fanciful. If the economists have been making the same assumptions as you have, no wonder their forecasts are pessimistic!

Obviously, the more powerful the country, the more clout they have, but we are one of the world's largest economies, a fact you dismiss as though it had no importance. You also imply that the UK would accept a trade deal that would be bad for us. Why would we do that?

I knew you were a pessimist, Hugh, but now I'm beginning to worry about you!

---------- Post added at 19:05 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Because in trade negotiations, it’s a major factor.

Strength comes into it, but it's about satisfying mutual interests.

We are pretty strong actually.

---------- Post added at 19:09 ---------- Previous post was at 19:05 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

So what exactly does "level playing field" mean, and who controls and sets the "field"? If the UK wants to implement a change that helps and assists business, do the EU have to follow suit or would we be prevented from doing it in the first place? Take a wild guess. Does the EU insist on that for trade deals with other countries, eg Vietnam?

Nail on head! A 'level playing field' should only be about meeting EU specifications relating to standards.

Equality of employment laws, etc, should not apply to us once we are out of the prison that is the EU.

Originally Posted by Hugh

It’ll be quicker than usual if we agree to the "level playing field", which BJ has said we won’t.

https://www.ft.com/content/30a1b750-...f-cc63de1d73f4

Of course we won’t agree to a level playing field, and of course the EU is concerned about that.

So many EU regulations are finely wrought compromises that try to account for various sectoral interests in different member states. The rules are pitched as “harmonisation” but all too often what that really means is that a powerful interest in one country is being undercut by a smaller, nimbler business somewhere else. Lo and behold, along comes the EU with regulations that “harmonise” the market in the direction of standards big businesses have the resources to meet, but erode the competitiveness of smaller ones.

GDPR is a classic recent case in point. The administrative burden even on small charities is absurd. What it’s doing to small businesses that don’t have their own compliance departments and in-house lawyers I can only guess. The attempt to ban olive oil at table in non-factory sealed bottles is another, that threatened to put a host of small producers out of business. Thankfully the EU did a rare u-turn in that instance, but the loud squeals from the trade association for producers who sell their olive oil only in factory-sealed bottles tells you all you need to know about how far this really had anything to do with consumer protection.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Chris

Of course we won’t agree to a level playing field, and of course the EU is concerned about that.

So many EU regulations are finely wrought compromises that try to account for various sectoral interests in different member states. The rules are pitched as “harmonisation” but all too often what that really means is that a powerful interest in one country is being undercut by a smaller, nimbler business somewhere else. Lo and behold, along comes the EU with regulations that “harmonise” the market in the direction of standards big businesses have the resources to meet, but erode the competitiveness of smaller ones.

GDPR is a classic recent case in point. The administrative burden even on small charities is absurd. What it’s doing to small businesses that don’t have their own compliance departments and in-house lawyers I can only guess. The attempt to ban olive oil at table in non-factory sealed bottles is another, that threatened to put a host of small producers out of business. Thankfully the EU did a rare u-turn in that instance, but the loud squeals from the trade association for producers who sell their olive oil only in factory-sealed bottles tells you all you need to know about how far this really had anything to do with consumer protection.

Agreed. This is one of the principal reasons I wanted to leave. Slowly but surely, the EU is strangling business and innovation.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Agreed. This is one of the principal reasons I wanted to leave. Slowly but surely, the EU is strangling business and innovation.

It is one of the reasons why the “old Left” of British politics (including Jeremy Corbyn, God rest his political soul) is Eurosceptic. The EU exists to regulate, and market regulations harmonised across such a large international zone will always favour large transnational businesses.

[jonbxx]

Got some bad news about GPDR, it probably isn't going away - http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedP...nical_Note.pdf

GPDR is a pain but it is all about protecting our personal data. It's actually a huge benefit for multinational companies as there was a hodgepodge of different regulations across Europe before which made offshoring data a real pain. For example, my companies HR data was backed up in the US apart from data from Belgium and Germany. GPDR and the 'Adequacy framework' in GPDR let all data be centralised.

I understand that there is a burden for small business. However, how do you decide what small businesses, if any should GPDR apply to? Should it apply to a plumber with three employees? Maybe not. Should it apply to a lawyer writing wills as a sole trader? Probably yes.

Originally Posted by jonbxx

Got some bad news about GPDR, it probably isn't going away - http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedP...nical_Note.pdf

GPDR is a pain but it is all about protecting our personal data. It's actually a huge benefit for multinational companies as there was a hodgepodge of different regulations across Europe before which made offshoring data a real pain. For example, my companies HR data was backed up in the US apart from data from Belgium and Germany. GPDR and the 'Adequacy framework' in GPDR let all data be centralised.

I understand that there is a burden for small business. However, how do you decide what small businesses, if any should GPDR apply to? Should it apply to a plumber with three employees? Maybe not. Should it apply to a lawyer writing wills as a sole trader? Probably yes.

I wouldn’t have expected it to go away, not any time soon anyway. The principle that we can diverge from EU market rules where we need to is what was important to achieve, most especially for the vast majority of small, British businesses that never export to other EU countries, and for whom compliance with EU regulations is an unnecessary financial burden. It will take years to unpick, but at least we can do it now.

[TheDaddy]

So Ireland is getting half a billion of funding to link to the French energy network by passing Britain, weren't we told this was project fear and would never happen, be intetesting to see what else comes to pass...

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

I wouldn’t have expected it to go away, not any time soon anyway. The principle that we can diverge from EU market rules where we need to is what was important to achieve, most especially for the vast majority of small, British businesses that never export to other EU countries, and for whom compliance with EU regulations is an unnecessary financial burden. It will take years to unpick, but at least we can do it now.

Divergence really depends on what trade deal we strike with the EU. The more trade with the EU you want, the less divergence you can get.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

So Ireland is getting half a billion of funding to link to the French energy network by passing Britain, weren't we told this was project fear and would never happen, be intetesting to see what else comes to pass...

Plans started in July 2016, although feasibility studies started the year before(April 2015 ie before the referendum). Won't be finished before 2025, so Brexit irrelevant.

Link

In July 2016, then French President, François Hollande and An Taoiseach Enda Kenny launched the current Initial Design and Pre-Consultation phase of the Celtic Interconnector.

France has a large surplus of energy, courtesy of nuclear power and exports it to the UK amongst others.
Link

Large volumes of nuclear generation in France made the country Europe’s biggest exporter of electricity in the first 11 months of the year, according to new research.

Connections to the UK will still be there.
Link

Separately, there is a planned north-south interconnector that is pencilled to go ahead notwithstanding Brexit.

---------- Post added at 11:40 ---------- Previous post was at 11:36 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Divergence really depends on what trade deal we strike with the EU. The more trade with the EU you want, the less divergence you can get.

"level playing field" is very different to product standards. In no way would other countries submit to an EU defined and imposed "level playing field". Does China have a "level playing field" with the EU?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

"level playing field" is very different to product standards. In no way would other countries submit to an EU defined and imposed "level playing field". Does China have a "level playing field" with the EU?

I'm not sure what point you're making. China does not have a close free trade deal or level playing field with the EU.
Countries like Norway that do wish for a close deal with the EU, do.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don't have to, because once again (sigh) I have to remind you that we will still be trading with the EU after Brexit, so much, if not all of that 44% of exports will still exist. To read your posts, anyone would think that we were shutting up shop altogether with the EU, which is just ludicrous and fanciful. If the economists have been making the same assumptions as you have, no wonder their forecasts are pessimistic!

Obviously, the more powerful the country, the more clout they have, but we are one of the world's largest economies, a fact you dismiss as though it had no importance. You also imply that the UK would accept a trade deal that would be bad for us. Why would we do that?

I knew you were a pessimist, Hugh, but now I'm beginning to worry about you!

---------- Post added at 19:05 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------



Strength comes into it, but it's about satisfying mutual interests.

We are pretty strong actually.

---------- Post added at 19:09 ---------- Previous post was at 19:05 ----------



Nail on head! A 'level playing field' should only be about meeting EU specifications relating to standards.

Equality of employment laws, etc, should not apply to us once we are out of the prison that is the EU.

In ranking, yes - in comparison to the EU, China, and the USA, no.

As I stated previously, we are 1/7th of the GDP of the EU, around 1/6th of the USA, and 1/8th of China - recently, China and the USA have not been shy to use tariffs to show their trading power, so why do we think we would be exempt from this?

[tweetiepooh]

Paging wonderful Goon type show

Grytpype:
Well, Admiral Fred, the garrison at Burami Oasis is under constant siege.

Seagoon:
Aohoo?

Grytpype:
Now there’s only one way to deal with these turban devils of bran, we’re... Wait a minute, wait for it... [suddenly over-dramatic] We're going to send a GUNBOAT!

FX:
[Thunderous cheers, leading into "Land of Hope and Glory"]

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm not sure what point you're making. China does not have a close free trade deal or level playing field with the EU.
Countries like Norway that do wish for a close deal with the EU, do.

The European Union (EU) has about 40 free trade deals, covering more than 70 countries. That means the UK, as a member of the EU, can currently trade with countries like Canada without having to pay taxes on its imports (tariffs) of most goods.

Even the EU countries don't have a full "level playing field" with each other. Do countries like Vietnam, Turkey, Japan, Mexico etc have a "level playing field" with Germany?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Even the EU countries don't have a full "level playing field" with each other. Do countries like Vietnam, Turkey, Japan, Mexico etc have a "level playing field" with Germany?

Possibly confused because you didn't see the word "close"? A free trade deal is not binary.