Britain outside the EU

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Give it a chance, Andrew.

The EU has shown us its true colours. As you've said before, let's move on; I say let's make our way in the world. Sod the EU.

The EU shows it true colours by enforcing its rules for third country imports into the single market? People didn't want regulatory alignment with EU rules so this is what we get.

It's the price of that sweet, sweet sovereignty

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

The EU shows it true colours by enforcing its rules for third country imports into the single market? People didn't want regulatory alignment with EU rules so this is what we get.

It's the price of that sweet, sweet sovereignty

I'm disappointed that a clear-headed person such as yourself becomes an explainer on behalf of the EU. They are obviously enforcing their rules, we all know that. It's early days and if we get the grace period extension, we can complete development of the front end systems that will make conformance easier.

But I do hope that you're not also revelling on the EU's behalf of the really true colours displayed in last week's Article 16 fiasco.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'm disappointed that a clear-headed person such as yourself becomes an explainer on behalf of the EU. They are obviously enforcing their rules, we all know that. It's early days and if we get the grace period extension, we can complete development of the front end systems that will make conformance easier.

But I do hope that you're not also revelling on the EU's behalf of the really true colours displayed in last week's Article 16 fiasco.

Is Vaccinegate destined to supercede WWII in Brexit discussions?

There's no plans to get an extension to the rules of fish to mainland Europe. That's done and dusted. A work-around might be to land the fish in continental ports but this is no good unless you're near to the Continent.

It's the island of Ireland trade situation that Michael Gove is now hoping for an extension on.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Is Vaccinegate destined to supercede WWII in Brexit discussions?

There's no plans to get an extension to the rules of fish to mainland Europe. That's done and dusted. A work-around might be to land the fish in continental ports but this is no good unless you're near to the Continent.

It's the island of Ireland trade situation that Michael Gove is now hoping for an extension on.

To address your first point -0 what the EU did is a very serious matter. Their true colours is of immense importance.

Your point about the fish is correct as is my point that this is early days.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'm disappointed that a clear-headed person such as yourself becomes an explainer on behalf of the EU. They are obviously enforcing their rules, we all know that. It's early days and if we get the grace period extension, we can complete development of the front end systems that will make conformance easier.

But I do hope that you're not also revelling on the EU's behalf of the really true colours displayed in last week's Article 16 fiasco.

If the EU were treating us differently from other third countries, then I think we would have reason to complain but if not, what's the issue? If the EU showing their 'true colours' in applying their rules, that certainly not be a surprise, the EU is a rules based organisation Not everyone seems to think that, they think we are being punished by the EU.

I think there has been a degree of not recognising what the SM and CU gave us and that has only become clear now we are not part of it. It's the non-tariff barriers that are causing the pain. I'm not sure what the answer is - do we concentrate on customers with lower non-tariff barriers/standards going forward?

The whole article 16 thing was a mess, I agree. Trade heads got involved without consulting on the political ramifications. Happily it was nipped in the bud before it was enacted. I have read a good explainer as to why it happened by Tony Connelly, an Irish journalist and it was due to the fudge that is the Irish agreement and I kind of get it but the response, in Tony Connellys word himself 'was a horrendously disproportionate solution, sledgehammer meet nut etc, and we've seen the fall out'

[nomadking]

The whole point of any deal is to avoid everything that is required by everybody else that is not part of any deal. Either we have some sort of a deal with the EU, or we're to be treated as anybody else. Which is it?

Any difficulties and complications are at the behest of the EU, especially Ireland strangely enough.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

If the EU were treating us differently from other third countries, then I think we would have reason to complain but if not, what's the issue? If the EU showing their 'true colours' in applying their rules, that certainly not be a surprise, the EU is a rules based organisation Not everyone seems to think that, they think we are being punished by the EU.

I think there has been a degree of not recognising what the SM and CU gave us and that has only become clear now we are not part of it. It's the non-tariff barriers that are causing the pain. I'm not sure what the answer is - do we concentrate on customers with lower non-tariff barriers/standards going forward?

Agreed. At the moment we're seeing people struggling to rationalise the logical consequences of what leaving the EU actually means. Some may have read in their newspapers that EU membership generates lots of red tape. So as EU countries are now treating us correctly as a third country, how can they rationalise such behaviour. Perhaps as the EU perhaps being difficult or perhaps even punishing us?

People have grown used to the lack of bureacuracy that being in the single market and customs union provided. They don't realise it was one of the benefits of EU membership and not something a country automatically enjoys.

I think technology has its part to play but the extra costs and delays generated are damaging. There's also the competitiveness factor. If you're based in France, you can grow outside your home country quite easily just by expanding your existing infrastructure. If in the UK, once you want to export to Europe, things go up a notch and you might be looking for EU warehousing. The long-term consequence could see smaller UK companies being picked off by European ones as the UK companies have decided against that bigger leap.

[Mad Max]

Always looking for the positives eh, Andrew.

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Always looking for the positives eh, Andrew.

Reality doesn’t care about anyone’s politics...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Reality doesn’t care about anyone’s politics...

Like the reality of the EU's behaviour on Article 16 & vaccines isn't steeped in politics?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Always looking for the positives eh, Andrew.

Always. Which is why I was the first to post the positive news story about Nissan.
But sometimes negative. Like when I posted the damning - against the EU - La Republica interview with the head of AstraZenecca.
But we need to acknowledge that for a lot of smaller businesses trying to trade with the EU at the moment can be tough. That's due to our third country status. No amount of back-slapping over vaccine procurement changes this.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Like the reality of the EU's behaviour on Article 16 & vaccines isn't steeped in politics?

Well said...

[Paddy1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Like the reality of the EU's behaviour on Article 16 & vaccines isn't steeped in politics?

What is the EUs behaviour on Article 16? At worst, they seem to have threatened to trigger it but didn't. How is this any different to what Boris has previously done and continues to do?

I think there is some confusion in the general media over what actually happened. Even if you don't subscribe to the explanation that it was a draft paper that was never enacted, triggering Article 16 requires them to notify the joint committee immediately and a week long period of consultation to be initiated.

We are not in a week long period of consultation and as far as I know, the joint committee were never informed so it was never triggered.

Originally Posted by Paddy1

What is the EUs behaviour on Article 16? At worst, they seem to have threatened to trigger it but didn't. How is this any different to what Boris has previously done and continues to do?

I think there is some confusion in the general media over what actually happened. Even if you don't subscribe to the explanation that it was a draft paper that was never enacted, triggering Article 16 requires them to notify the joint committee immediately and a week long period of consultation to be initiated.

We are not in a week long period of consultation and as far as I know, the joint committee were never informed so it was never triggered.

Discussion of what technically did or did not happen is at best red herring, and at worse a rather craven exercise in apologetics. If you want to understand the EU’s intent, and its likely consequences, simply look first at the reaction of the Irish government, whose interests the EU is supposed to have at heart, then add to it the reactions of the British government and every political party in Northern Ireland, unionist and republican alike.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Paddy1

What is the EUs behaviour on Article 16? At worst, they seem to have threatened to trigger it but didn't. How is this any different to what Boris has previously done and continues to do?

I think there is some confusion in the general media over what actually happened. Even if you don't subscribe to the explanation that it was a draft paper that was never enacted, triggering Article 16 requires them to notify the joint committee immediately and a week long period of consultation to be initiated.

We are not in a week long period of consultation and as far as I know, the joint committee were never informed so it was never triggered.

The regulation was actually issued. How could it be a draft paper when it was due to start to be enforced the next day? Because it didn't start until the 30th, they had the chance to stop it from being enforced. Still leaves the matter of having to inform the Joint Committee, and the one month's notice required.

(16) Exports of goods from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom cannot
be restricted by Union law unless this is strictly required by international obligations
of the Union. Therefore, movements of goods covered by this Regulation between the
Union and Northern Ireland should be treated as exports. Whilst quantitative
restrictions on exports are prohibited between the Union and Northern Ireland, in
accordance with Article 5 (5) of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, this is
justified as a safeguard measure pursuant to Article 16 of that Protocol in order to
avert serious societal difficulties due to a lack of supply threatening to disturb the
orderly implementation of the vaccination campaigns in the Member States.
...
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 29.1.2021
For the Commission
The President
Ursula VON DER LEYEN