Non Alignment

[Martin Holden]

This way to simplistic. It's not just a case of producing a product or supplying a service that complies to the recipient countries rules and regs. It goes much further back to government policy. A company supplying a product would have to conform to mutually agreed items like environmental standards, labour laws, state aid rules to start with ( within the trade deal). If the country then diverged from these, the products could be blocked or tariffs imposed. When the item gets to the border, it has to be shown that it meets all the importing countries rules & regs which may require research and tests to be done within the importing country. In the US, in the event of no federal law, this can be a state by state effort. Currently most counties the world follow either the US or the EU when it comes to alignment, so it would be pretty odd for the UK to try and set it's own agenda.

I don’t see our standards dropping for UK produced goods. What I can see is the EU trying to make compliance checks difficult but then that can work both ways! All this talk about regulation and checking of goods is a whitewash dreamt up by bureaucrats just for the sake of it. Actually while many criticise the US of protectionism, the EU have done a pretty good job of it too. How long did it take to do a trade deal with Canada?

 

[ollie989898]

I don’t see our standards dropping for UK produced goods. What I can see is the EU trying to make compliance checks difficult but then that can work both ways! All this talk about regulation and checking of goods is a whitewash dreamt up by bureaucrats just for the sake of it. Actually while many criticise the US of protectionism, the EU have done a pretty good job of it too. How long did it take to do a trade deal with Canada?

I'm not sure the US is particularly protectionist- certainly in the past it wasn't, otherwise Trump would not be complaining that China etc were trading unfairly. I know he has imposed tariffs and the like in recent years but that is the first of such moves made for years I would think. I think both the Bush and Obama administrations took trade disputes to the WTO because of how China were playing the game.

 

[yin ewe]

Check the status of the US Canada and Mexico trade deal. This is between countries that are neighbors and very long term trading partners. It is not a ''done deal'' until it is done. I hope you are not counting on a quick and easy outcome!

The point is that you align the product you want to export to the standards that a particular country wants the product to be. If you are exporting the same product to a different country then you must adhere to their standards. I realise that trade deals and politics comes into it but business generally finds a way around it.

 

[mwj]

My point is that it takes a lot of time to make these deals happen. It is not as simple as a couple of people on the phone and loading a few containers.

The trade deal between your country and ours all will change after you leave the EU. It could be better or worse, but it will not be quick.

 

[Danllan]

This way to simplistic. It's not just a case of producing a product or supplying a service that complies to the recipient countries rules and regs. It goes much further back to government policy. A company supplying a product would have to conform to mutually agreed items like environmental standards, labour laws, state aid rules to start with ( within the trade deal). If the country then diverged from these, the products could be blocked or tariffs imposed. When the item gets to the border, it has to be shown that it meets all the importing countries rules & regs which may require research and tests to be done within the importing country. In the US, in the event of no federal law, this can be a state by state effort. Currently most counties the world follow either the US or the EU when it comes to alignment, so it would be pretty odd for the UK to try and set it's own agenda.

No, you just want to overstate everything to try and support your case and the EU. I've a nodding acquaintanceship with trade between several countries and Japan, and between Japan and Tanzania. I also have a good understanding of the trade rule operating between the EU and various countries. The most obvious rebuttal of your post is Australia, and its free trade deals with Japan and S. Korea, take a squint at those and tell me where they impose environmental standard on each other.

Most countries in the world have tiny economies compared to the UK. You'll have to supply me with '...mutually agreed items like environmental standards...' in an international trad treaty, on a country by country basis. So far, all trading countries / blocks have specified what they will allow into their jurisdictions, not what the other party must accept.

My point is that it takes a lot of time to make these deals happen. It is not as simple as a couple of people on the phone and loading a few containers.

The trade deal between your country and ours all will change after you leave the EU. It could be better or worse, but it will not be quick.

Yes and no, once provisional intentions are agreed you can trade under those while the negotiations are taking place, this can and does go on for years, indeed up until the agreement is ratified; the GATT rules make that clear.

So, once the provisional agreement is made, it really is as simple as a a 'phone call and an order.

 

[Muck Spreader]

No, you just want to overstate everything to try and support your case and the EU. I've a nodding acquaintanceship with trade between several countries and Japan, and between Japan and Tanzania. I also have a good understanding of the trade rule operating between the EU and various countries. The most obvious rebuttal of your post is Australia, and its free trade deals with Japan and S. Korea, take a squint at those and tell me where they impose environmental standard on each other.

Most countries in the world have tiny economies compared to the UK. You'll have to supply me with '...mutually agreed items like environmental standards...' in an international trad treaty, on a country by country basis. So far, all trading countries / blocks have specified what they will allow into their jurisdictions, not what the other party must accept.


Yes and no, once provisional intentions are agreed you can trade under those while the negotiations are taking place, this can and does go on for years, indeed up until the agreement is ratified; the GATT rules make that clear.

So, once the provisional agreement is made, it really is as simple as a a 'phone call and an order.

So you agree with me that you have to have a trade deal and all the implications that go with it? It's not just a matter of producing a product to a importing countries specification. As you refer to Australia, how long did it take to implement a Japan Australia trade deal? Seven Years.

 

[Muck Spreader]

I don’t see our standards dropping for UK produced goods. What I can see is the EU trying to make compliance checks difficult but then that can work both ways! All this talk about regulation and checking of goods is a whitewash dreamt up by bureaucrats just for the sake of it. Actually while many criticise the US of protectionism, the EU have done a pretty good job of it too. How long did it take to do a trade deal with Canada?

As the Canada trade deal is not yet quite in full action (provisional operation from 2017)I guess about 15 years from the initial talks. I don't see UK standards dropping either, but the EU will be on it's guard for any loopholes that allow the UK to become a conduit for substandard goods entering the EU. As I see it, US protectionism is as much a function of it's chaotic divisions between state and federal laws as anything else.

 

[Danllan]

So you agree with me that you have to have a trade deal and all the implications that go with it? It's not just a matter of producing a product to a importing countries specification. As you refer to Australia, how long did it take to implement a Japan Australia trade deal? Seven Years.

No, I haven't written anywhere that one can unilaterally foist one's goods onto any given market just because said goods comply with the requirements that market has - the matter in question is alignment.

Clearly a deal between two sovereign trading areas, be they countries or whatever, is the obvious and most direct route for transfer of goods. However, there is a hell of a lot of import / export that involves goods (and now services) going from one area to another via a third with whom both have agreements. For that middle-man to be able to pass on item X from one to another, item X must be produced in the first area to comply with the second area's requirements.

As you have taken up the subject of Australia, which I rather hoped you would , you'll be aware that its (then) intended deal with Japan is a shining example of trade taking place under the GATT rules. I.e. they both stated what they intended and the general parameters of it and, under GATT, were then able to trade as wished until the final agreement was ratified. Or had you forgotten that...

In passing, it's remarkable that the Ozzies and Japs could - without any previous alignment being in place - have negotiated a full agreement in seven years (in fact it was less, more like four or five if the negotiations are what's counted, rather than including the waiting periods). Whereas the EU mob reckon a decade or more is necessary to do the same with a country that will have identical rules across the board until its moment of departure... from the EU.


Stop sulking, the UK is leaving your EU. You're in France, you've said you're happy there, good luck to you, become French and stop worrying about us, concentrate on improving your beloved EU. And good luck with that . In fact, best of British!

 

[Martin Holden]

As the Canada trade deal is not yet quite in full action (provisional operation from 2017)I guess about 15 years from the initial talks. I don't see UK standards dropping either, but the EU will be on it's guard for any loopholes that allow the UK to become a conduit for substandard goods entering the EU. As I see it, US protectionism is as much a function of it's chaotic divisions between state and federal laws as anything else.

I agree. The UK can’t be a conduit for 3 party goods entering the EU

 

[Muck Spreader]

No, I haven't written anywhere that one can unilaterally foist one's goods onto any given market just because said goods comply with the requirements that market has - the matter in question is alignment.

Clearly a deal between two sovereign trading areas, be they countries or whatever, is the obvious and most direct route for transfer of goods. However, there is a hell of a lot of import / export that involves goods (and now services) going from one area to another via a third with whom both have agreements. For that middle-man to be able to pass on item X from one to another, item X must be produced in the first area to comply with the second area's requirements.

As you have taken up the subject of Australia, which I rather hoped you would , you'll be aware that its (then) intended deal with Japan is a shining example of trade taking place under the GATT rules. I.e. they both stated what they intended and the general parameters of it and, under GATT, were then able to trade as wished until the final agreement was ratified. Or had you forgotten that...

In passing, it's remarkable that the Ozzies and Japs could - without any previous alignment being in place - have negotiated a full agreement in seven years (in fact it was less, more like four or five if the negotiations are what's counted, rather than including the waiting periods). Whereas the EU mob reckon a decade or more is necessary to do the same with a country that will have identical rules across the board until its moment of departure... from the EU.


Stop sulking, the UK is leaving your EU. You're in France, you've said you're happy there, good luck to you, become French and stop worrying about us, concentrate on improving your beloved EU. And good luck with that . In fact, best of British!

The Japanese Australian trade negotiations lasted 7 years, despite it being a comparatively simplistic deal. And basically covered Australian food exports v Japanese electronic and automotive goods, making them very complementary economies in the first place. This is nothing like the trade deals the UK is faced with undertaking over the coming years.

 

[le bon paysan]

It kind of is, if we meet all the environmental regs, labour laws and state aid laws etc as you have said, required by a country then we will be able to export our produce to that country, subject to trade deals of course. Just as a country wanting to export to the UK will have to meet our standards. Does it really need 2 parliaments, 750 MEPS and countless hangers on to sort it all out?

But you will not meet them. That is the whole point of leaving and is the governments aim, as stated by SJ

 

[Danllan]

But you will not meet them. That is the whole point of leaving and is the governments aim, as stated by SJ

The whole point of leaving - setting aside the democratic imperative - is that we (meaning the UK collectively) can decide the standards we want and then apply those. And then, once national ones have been set, we (meaning producers) can apply any above those that we feel necessary for our businesses.

I've a share in a small but pretty high-tech engineering firm; it is bound by UK and - currently - EU standards as to what it makes, how it these are made and, to an extent, what they are made with. Over and above these, we still sell stuff to the US, Japan and other countries. Some are happy to something manufactured to US, EU or British spec', others have their own ideas and - follow me closely here - despite there being no specific FTA with them and their wanting something different to the aforementioned spec's, we still accommodate them and sell to them. It's called business.

The Japanese Australian trade negotiations lasted 7 years, despite it being a comparatively simplistic deal. And basically covered Australian food exports v Japanese electronic and automotive goods, making them very complementary economies in the first place. This is nothing like the trade deals the UK is faced with undertaking over the coming years.

And Australia has nothing like the UK consumer market that foreign exporters want to sell to / keep on selling to. The seven years isn't the real figure, it's the notional one, official certainly, but it didn't take that long. I note you've made no comment on my mention of the GATT provision for ongoing trade during negotiations, but the fact remains. As for complimentary economies, we like selling services to Europe, it likes selling us cars and wine...

The World wants trade to continue, and business always finds a way, your protectionist - and extremely hypocritical - block wants things its own way, always. We disagree and our success is - probably rightly - seen as a threat to the EU's integrity by those advocating an EU single state. But, business will find a way. Do some homework about Belgian and Dutch investment on the East Coast of England - in anticipation of taking away business form Northern France -and you it might finally get through to you that... business always finds a way.

 

[le bon paysan]

The whole point of leaving - setting aside the democratic imperative - is that we (meaning the UK collectively) can decide the standards we want and then apply those. And then, once national ones have been set, we (meaning producers) can apply any above those that we feel necessary for our businesses.

I've a share in a small but pretty high-tech engineering firm; it is bound by UK and - currently - EU standards as to what it makes, how it these are made and, to an extent, what they are made with. Over and above these, we still sell stuff to the US, Japan and other countries. Some are happy to something manufactured to US, EU or British spec', others have their own ideas and - follow me closely here - despite there being no specific FTA with them and their wanting something different to the aforementioned spec's, we still accommodate them and sell to them. It's called business.


And Australia has nothing like the UK consumer market that foreign exporters want to sell to / keep on selling to. The seven years isn't the real figure, it's the notional one, official certainly, but it didn't take that long. I note you've made no comment on my mention of the GATT provision for ongoing trade during negotiations, but the fact remains. As for complimentary economies, we like selling services to Europe, it likes selling us cars and wine...

The World wants trade to continue, and business always finds a way, your protectionist - and extremely hypocritical - block wants things its own way, always. We disagree and our success is - probably rightly - seen as a threat to the EU's integrity by those advocating an EU single state. But, business will find a way. Do some homework about Belgian and Dutch investment on the East Coast of England - in anticipation of taking away business form Northern France -and you it might finally get through to you that... business always finds a way.

So , individual farmers will have to arrange their own proof of meeting EU standards?
I see a new scheme arising , red tractor / fabbl EU standards audit.
That'll be another £500 please.
As if livestock farmers haven't got enough paper work and costs.
@neilo

 

[Muck Spreader]

The whole point of leaving - setting aside the democratic imperative - is that we (meaning the UK collectively) can decide the standards we want and then apply those. And then, once national ones have been set, we (meaning producers) can apply any above those that we feel necessary for our businesses.

I've a share in a small but pretty high-tech engineering firm; it is bound by UK and - currently - EU standards as to what it makes, how it these are made and, to an extent, what they are made with. Over and above these, we still sell stuff to the US, Japan and other countries. Some are happy to something manufactured to US, EU or British spec', others have their own ideas and - follow me closely here - despite there being no specific FTA with them and their wanting something different to the aforementioned spec's, we still accommodate them and sell to them. It's called business.


And Australia has nothing like the UK consumer market that foreign exporters want to sell to / keep on selling to. The seven years isn't the real figure, it's the notional one, official certainly, but it didn't take that long. I note you've made no comment on my mention of the GATT provision for ongoing trade during negotiations, but the fact remains. As for complimentary economies, we like selling services to Europe, it likes selling us cars and wine...

The World wants trade to continue, and business always finds a way, your protectionist - and extremely hypocritical - block wants things its own way, always. We disagree and our success is - probably rightly - seen as a threat to the EU's integrity by those advocating an EU single state. But, business will find a way. Do some homework about Belgian and Dutch investment on the East Coast of England - in anticipation of taking away business form Northern France -and you it might finally get through to you that... business always finds a way.

This tells me all I need to know about current Dutch investments:-
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-netherlands-investments/british-investments-in-netherlands-soar-
four-fold-ahead-of-brexit-idUSKCN1VU0F1

And as regards to the UK financial services this is their way of dealing with it:-
https://news.efinancialcareers.com/fr-en/3000398/brexit-banks-moving-out-of-london

However, I don't think it's all one way. My SIL is a director of a company that specialises in buyouts and takeovers of medium sized businesses for overseas clients. She reckons business has been excellent over the last few years with the weak pound and modest stock-market valuations (apparently) with most going to US investors and companies.

 

[Muck Spreader]

So , individual farmers will have to arrange their own proof of meeting EU standards?
I see a new scheme arising , red tractor / fabbl EU standards audit.
That'll be another £500 please.
As if livestock farmers haven't got enough paper work and costs.
@neilo

The way it's heading livestock farmers will being added to the rare breeds list, along with the animals.

 

[yin ewe]

So , individual farmers will have to arrange their own proof of meeting EU standards?
I see a new scheme arising , red tractor / fabbl EU standards audit.
That'll be another £500 please.
As if livestock farmers haven't got enough paper work and costs.
@neilo

There are still cattle, dairy and sheep farmers who are not farm quality assured, what happens to their produce at the moment? I'd hope that it doesn't go into the same market as mine, otherwise it defeats the purpose of the scheme. Same thing applies after Brexit if my produce complies with EU standards then it will still be able to go into the EU, subject to trade agreements. If the EU decide to add to their regulations then I would need to decide whether to follow their regs or look for other markets that my produce complies with in its current form.

 

[Danllan]

So , individual farmers will have to arrange their own proof of meeting EU standards?
I see a new scheme arising , red tractor / fabbl EU standards audit.
That'll be another £500 please.
As if livestock farmers haven't got enough paper work and costs.
@neilo

Shock, horror! Businesses must comply with home rules + those of their foreign markets.

This tells me all I need to know about current Dutch investments...

More accurately, it tells you all you want to know.

 

[le bon paysan]

Shock, horror! Businesses must comply with home rules + those of their foreign markets.

Exactly! That's EU regs.
So when its EU regs = bad
Self imposed = OK
Different regs as base, volunteer for EU and square one. So what was the flaming point.? All this to be worse off.
Turkeys voting for bloody christmas! And less money.

 

[Danllan]

Exactly! That's EU regs.
So when its EU regs = bad
Self imposed = OK
Different regs as base, volunteer for EU and square one. So what was the flaming point.? All this to be worse off.
Turkeys voting for bloody christmas! And less money.

Exactly! Self-imposed = OK, well done, you've finally got it.

Whichever reg's we choose as a base, maybe similar to the EU or to the US or whatever we think is in our interest, and reg's that we can change as markets change. UK Ag will change, it will have to, and it will be healthier for it.

Worse off? I'll bet you a grand now that in ten years UK Ag is in a better state than that of your EUtopia.

 

[Jungle Bill]

Exactly! Self-imposed = OK, well done, you've finally got it.

Whichever reg's we choose as a base, maybe similar to the EU or to the US or whatever we think is in our interest, and reg's that we can change as markets change. UK Ag will change, it will have to, and it will be healthier for it.

Worse off? I'll bet you a grand now that in ten years UK Ag is in a better state than that of your EUtopia.

Doesn’t look like UK will be united in 10 years...