UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[jfman]

It’d be nice to do many things that are unrealistic in practical terms. That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t consider other outcomes that might be beneficial to my needs.

Originally Posted by jfman

Rules we have no plans to diverge from for years apparently.

The question of alignment is slightly more involved than it first appears, precisely because “no plans to diverge” is a million miles away from “dynamically align”, which is the EU’s starting position in negotiations. Even if we have no plans to change our rules that will lead to divergence over time as the EU change theirs. Dynamic alignment, in which we automatically update our rules to remain in line with theirs, solves this, at the expense of giving up one of the principal benefits of leaving the EU in the first place. Even without intention to actively change UK market rules, the only viable trade deal with the EU is one based on mutual recognition, not alignment.

Originally Posted by Chris

The question of alignment is slightly more involved than it first appears, precisely because “no plans to diverge” is a million miles away from “dynamically align”, which is the EU’s starting position in negotiations. Even if we have no plans to change our rules that will lead to divergence over time as the EU change theirs. Dynamic alignment, in which we automatically update our rules to remain in line with theirs, solves this, at the expense of giving up one of the principal benefits of leaving the EU in the first place. Even without intention to actively change UK market rules, the only viable trade deal with the EU is one based on mutual recognition, not alignment.

Again, (shock horror) totally agree.

I believe negotiating this trade deal will take more than three months.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I'm not sure if some of you are being deliberately obtuse. My point was about the specifications for goods. From next year we want to be able to determine the specifications for goods coming into this country and those we export out. We don't want to be hidebound by EU rules that are there as protectionist measures by the EU..

Of course, when it comes to trade WITH the EU, they will want goods coming in to meet certain standards. Well, we already meet those standards, which is why it will not take so long for us to get a trade agreement, assuming the EU are not still in punishment mode.

If we were still subject to EU rules next year, we would not have a free hand on these matters in negotiating with other countries. It will be our decision, not theirs, if we want to import chlorinated chicken from the States (which I would remind everyone is safer than EU salmonella-covered chicken).

You are absolutely right in once we have completely left the EU, we can set any standards we want. At present, as you say, we are fully aligned with EU standards and if we produce goods that do not conform with those standards, there is a dispute system in place.

However, what happens if we decide to change our standards, for example. letting the famous chlorinated chicken in? All of a sudden, we are no longer aligned and goods will be stopped at the border and cannot be sold. This of course works both ways - the EU could change standards making goods produced in the EU unsellable in the UK.

Without a dynamic alignment, there could be many banana skins down the line

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

Rules we have no plans to diverge from for years apparently.

So the EU aren't going to be planning additional new rules? It's also about what can be sold where. Something that is sold in the UK should be subject to UK rules, just as something sold in the EU is subject to EU rules. Nobody has a problem with that. The Eu is trying to insist that products sold in the UK should be subject to EU rules and jurisdiction, and all without having a say on those rules in the first place.

Originally Posted by jonbxx

You are absolutely right in once we have completely left the EU, we can set any standards we want. At present, as you say, we are fully aligned with EU standards and if we produce goods that do not conform with those standards, there is a dispute system in place.

However, what happens if we decide to change our standards, for example. letting the famous chlorinated chicken in? All of a sudden, we are no longer aligned and goods will be stopped at the border and cannot be sold. This of course works both ways - the EU could change standards making goods produced in the EU unsellable in the UK.

Without a dynamic alignment, there could be many banana skins down the line

You’re misunderstanding the principle of mutual recognition of standards, which is what almost always underpins an international trade deal.

The EU’s demand for dynamic alignment has nothing to do with goods becoming unsellable. It’s about their concerns that their rules make their businesses uncompetitive if a nearby, major economy like the UK decided to deregulate, sell into the single market and undercut their domestic producers in ways those producers can have no answer for.

What they are demanding is for the UK to be treated differently to other countries it has done a deal with, not out of friendship and a desire for more trade, but out of fear that they have lost influence over one of the world’s major economies and for the potential consequences of that for them.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So the EU aren't going to be planning additional new rules? It's also about what can be sold where. Something that is sold in the UK should be subject to UK rules, just as something sold in the EU is subject to EU rules. Nobody has a problem with that. The Eu is trying to insist that products sold in the UK should be subject to EU rules and jurisdiction, and all without having a say on those rules in the first place.

It’s not that I haven’t understood you all the first time(s) it’s that I think your stances are extremely pointless and outweighed by the huge economic uncertainty we are already in.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

You are absolutely right in once we have completely left the EU, we can set any standards we want. At present, as you say, we are fully aligned with EU standards and if we produce goods that do not conform with those standards, there is a dispute system in place.

However, what happens if we decide to change our standards, for example. letting the famous chlorinated chicken in? All of a sudden, we are no longer aligned and goods will be stopped at the border and cannot be sold. This of course works both ways - the EU could change standards making goods produced in the EU unsellable in the UK.

Without a dynamic alignment, there could be many banana skins down the line

But nobody's suggesting that the EU should take in chlorinated chicken. WE might (or might not) wish to do so, but I don't see what business that is of the EU. They only have to specify the standards expected of the goods THEY import.

---------- Post added at 18:18 ---------- Previous post was at 18:17 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

So the EU aren't going to be planning additional new rules? It's also about what can be sold where. Something that is sold in the UK should be subject to UK rules, just as something sold in the EU is subject to EU rules. Nobody has a problem with that. The Eu is trying to insist that products sold in the UK should be subject to EU rules and jurisdiction, and all without having a say on those rules in the first place.

Precisely! Got it in one!

---------- Post added at 18:23 ---------- Previous post was at 18:18 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s not that I haven’t understood you all the first time(s) it’s that I think your stances are extremely pointless and outweighed by the huge economic uncertainty we are already in.

It's not pointless unless you enjoy being bullied by the EU. We should be allowed to buy and sell to whomever we please without having to abide by the EU's dictats. Brexit would not be viable if we just kept within EU rules.

The EU can only prescribe the standards of goods imported by them. It is none of their business from next year what we import from and export to other countries.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Chris

You’re misunderstanding the principle of mutual recognition of standards, which is what almost always underpins an international trade deal.

The EU’s demand for dynamic alignment has nothing to do with goods becoming unsellable. It’s about their concerns that their rules make their businesses uncompetitive if a nearby, major economy like the UK decided to deregulate, sell into the single market and undercut their domestic producers in ways those producers can have no answer for.

What they are demanding is for the UK to be treated differently to other countries it has done a deal with, not out of friendship and a desire for more trade, but out of fear that they have lost influence over one of the world’s major economies and for the potential consequences of that for them.

Mutual recognition of standards requires mutual agreement of those standards. If the standards change on either side, those standards would need to pass the test to see if they are still equivalent otherwise the system falls down. Standards can and do change over time. For example, the Machinery Directive has changed 5 times since it was introduced in 1998.

Of course the EU doesn't want a 'Singapore' on its' borders, why would it and why would the EU facilitate this? The EU is a rules based organisation and 27 countries are willing to participate to create and abide by those rules to reap the benefits of things like the single market. If push came to shove, I think the EU countries would rather leave the UK out in the cold than undermine where they are right now.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's not pointless unless you enjoy being bullied by the EU. We should be allowed to buy and sell to whomever we please without having to abide by the EU's dictats. Brexit would not be viable if we just kept within EU rules.

The EU can only prescribe the standards of goods imported by them. It is none of their business from next year what we import from and export to other countries.

Here we go with the meaningless emotive terminology. ”Bullied” by the EU.

We’d be entering into any such agreement of our own accord. Anything the EU proposed to introduce in the next year could be immediately overturned at the end of the transition.

For someone so eager to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of your countrymen in the Coronavirus thread for the sake of a couple of percentage points on GDP you’re getting quite emotional about 365 days, or about four Coronavirus lockdowns about the hypothetical introduction of rules you can’t name that could be overturned before they were even implemented fully in the UK.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Here we go with the meaningless emotive terminology. ”Bullied” by the EU.

We’d be entering into any such agreement of our own accord. Anything the EU proposed to introduce in the next year could be immediately overturned at the end of the transition.

For someone so eager to risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of your countrymen in the Coronavirus thread for the sake of a couple of percentage points on GDP you’re getting quite emotional about 365 days, or about four Coronavirus lockdowns about the hypothetical introduction of rules you can’t name that could be overturned before they were even implemented fully in the UK.

If the EU is trying to dictate to us the imports we take in from other countries, yes, they are trying to bully us. I am not arguing that the EU should not be allowed to specify the standards for our exports to the EU, of course not - they have every right to do so. But that is not a problem for us, as we already meet them! This will not change.

However, they have no right to interfere with our trade with the rest of the world.

How you manage to think that this will damage our economy, I really cannot fathom! It's the measures we are taking regarding the coronavirus that will damage our economy.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If the EU is trying to dictate to us the imports we take in from other countries, yes, they are trying to bully us. I am not arguing that the EU should not be allowed to specify the standards for our exports to the EU, of course not - they have every right to do so. But that is not a problem for us, as we already meet them! This will not change.

However, they have no right to interfere with our trade with the rest of the world.

How you manage to think that this will damage our economy, I really cannot fathom! It's the measures we are taking regarding the coronavirus that will damage our economy.

You don’t understand now leaving the largest free trade area in the world, in the absence of any trade agreements, on an entirely arbitrary date, would damage the economy?

I’m sorry Old Boy you are a parody of yourself now. You used to be quite engaging to debate with despite our disagreements. However you are now arguing for the sake of arguing.

The whole point of Boris getting a deal and a transition agreement was to avoid an economically damaging cliff edge and allow our Government to develop frameworks to support our sectors that fall under EU guidelines just now such as agriculture and fisheries.

With 6-8 months of the transition effectively lost (which it will be) and global economies in a precarious state only the deliberately obtuse would wilfully claim, for entirely ideological reasons, that none of that had any bearing on whether there should be an extension or not.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

You don’t understand now leaving the largest free trade area in the world, in the absence of any trade agreements, on an entirely arbitrary date, would damage the economy?

I’m sorry Old Boy you are a parody of yourself now. You used to be quite engaging to debate with despite our disagreements. However you are now arguing for the sake of arguing.

The whole point of Boris getting a deal and a transition agreement was to avoid an economically damaging cliff edge and allow our Government to develop frameworks to support our sectors that fall under EU guidelines just now such as agriculture and fisheries.

With 6-8 months of the transition effectively lost (which it will be) and global economies in a precarious state only the deliberately obtuse would wilfully claim, for entirely ideological reasons, that none of that had any bearing on whether there should be an extension or not.

That's a good one!

[Carth]

'global economies in a precarious state' is the only part of recent posts that I've considered meaningful


Perhaps said global economies may be willing to push deals through faster for benefit to all?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

You don’t understand now leaving the largest free trade area in the world, in the absence of any trade agreements, on an entirely arbitrary date, would damage the economy?

I’m sorry Old Boy you are a parody of yourself now. You used to be quite engaging to debate with despite our disagreements. However you are now arguing for the sake of arguing.

The whole point of Boris getting a deal and a transition agreement was to avoid an economically damaging cliff edge and allow our Government to develop frameworks to support our sectors that fall under EU guidelines just now such as agriculture and fisheries.

With 6-8 months of the transition effectively lost (which it will be) and global economies in a precarious state only the deliberately obtuse would wilfully claim, for entirely ideological reasons, that none of that had any bearing on whether there should be an extension or not.

You are exaggerating the cost of leaving the EU to a considerable degree, and you are not addressing the upsides. I have said consistently that there are two sides to this equation and you consistently ignore it. As an economist, my good man, you should appreciate that there is a credit as well as a debit side.

Frankly, I would be surprised if the EU failed to agree a deal. The political statement accompanying the withdrawal agreement strongly indicates that a no tariff agreement is what they want, and it would be a major upset to the countries of the EU that export to the UK if this is not carried through. If a deal is reached, then where are the calamitous budget implications that will make our sky fall in?

And if a deal isn't reached, it still doesn't mean we won't be trading with the EU. I presume you accept that the EU will lose more by applying tariffs than we will lose. If I calculate that correctly, that gives us a tariff credit!