Yes, that's always been the case. But, what's clear to you and me seems to be denied by the UK government who want (or so they say) a comprehensive trade deal that maintains tariff-free trade while allowing UK regulations to diverge from the EU and striking deals elsewhere which could allow imports of goods that don't meet EU standards. Cake, it's all just cake.
They merely want the right to divert in the future.
I suspect that the UK is more interested in exports.
But then diverging in the future will put in jeopardy the tariff-free trade...
At this point I'm being reminded of the Protestant who proudly declares in the Monty Python film that he can have sex any time he wants without contraception, unlike those poor Catholics who have no choice. It's just that he never actually does.
If this whole thing ends up being about the UK asserting that it can have different rules in principle, but then in practice the UK never exercises that new-found right because there are too many disincentives... well then Brexit is a truly magnificent waste of time for the sake of a bit of useless symbolism.
It has been revealed that Boris is to go swanning off to India in January to strike one of his magnificent trade deals. Or possibly to find a way out of the hole he has dug for himself. Is there some way of stopping him from coming back?
It has been revealed that Boris is to go swanning off to India in January to strike one of his magnificent trade deals. Or possibly to find a way out of the hole he has dug for himself. Is there some way of stopping him from coming back?
Surely he'll have to isolate on return - that's the least we can hope for.
The fundamental problem with the EU-UK trade agreement is that it is the first such agreement in history which is intended to make trade between the two parties more difficult than it was before. (If anyone knows of another example I would be interested to know). As such it is probably impossible to find a formula that will not leave the UK and/or the EU feeling that they've been ripped off. This all stems from the mendacious Vote Leave promise that we could have all the benefits of EU membership without actually being members, without which they would not have won the referendum.
Yes, that's always been the case. But, what's clear to you and me seems to be denied by the UK government who want (or so they say) a comprehensive trade deal that maintains tariff-free trade while allowing UK regulations to diverge from the EU and striking deals elsewhere which could allow imports of goods that don't meet EU standards. Cake, it's all just cake.
They merely want the right to divert in the future.
I suspect that the UK is more interested in exports.
But then diverging in the future will put in jeopardy the tariff-free trade...
At this point I'm being reminded of the Protestant who proudly declares in the Monty Python film that he can have sex any time he wants without contraception, unlike those poor Catholics who have no choice. It's just that he never actually does.
If this whole thing ends up being about the UK asserting that it can have different rules in principle, but then in practice the UK never exercises that new-found right because there are too many disincentives... well then Brexit is a truly magnificent waste of time for the sake of a bit of useless symbolism.
It's worth breaking down exactly what's meant by 'divergence', though. This isn't about the UK opting out of previously agreed standards - it's about the EU wanting to change standards after the agreement, and have the UK follow suit.
Granted, we can't rely on what's been reported as being accurate. But it sounds like the original EU demand was that the EU could unilaterally decide to augment a standard in one sector, and then charge tariffs on UK goods in that sector if the UK doesn't follow suit.
Which isn't how trade deals normally work, and also sounds like that Europe à la carte that we were told is impossible. In general, any long-term contract needs some mechanism for variation - but a contract where one side can unilaterally vary terms tends to be a crap contract.
The UK's counter-proposal was that the deal should be periodically reviewed after a set number of years, and any divergences addressed then - which is also problematic.
To be honest, my suspicion is that the EU actually wants something in between, and advanced a deliberately unreasonable proposal purely and simply so that Mr Johnson could beat them down to what they really want.
If there is anything worse than being gas lit, it’s being gas lit by someone who does not know what gas lighting is.
If you can recall an earlier reply to me about pigeons defecating, I would like to extend the avian analogy. What happens to canaries deprived of oxygen? I suggest don’t reply... (snipped)
Well (as the person to whom the original remark about gilets jaunes was addressed) that is why I didn't reply to Telford. But just for the record, I wasn't praising the French police, merely pointing out that it is not their job to make the lives of British fishermen easier. They are indeed more violent than the British police, as la vie en rouge says.
Yes, that's always been the case. But, what's clear to you and me seems to be denied by the UK government who want (or so they say) a comprehensive trade deal that maintains tariff-free trade while allowing UK regulations to diverge from the EU and striking deals elsewhere which could allow imports of goods that don't meet EU standards. Cake, it's all just cake.
They merely want the right to divert in the future.
I suspect that the UK is more interested in exports.
But then diverging in the future will put in jeopardy the tariff-free trade...
At this point I'm being reminded of the Protestant who proudly declares in the Monty Python film that he can have sex any time he wants without contraception, unlike those poor Catholics who have no choice. It's just that he never actually does.
If this whole thing ends up being about the UK asserting that it can have different rules in principle, but then in practice the UK never exercises that new-found right because there are too many disincentives... well then Brexit is a truly magnificent waste of time for the sake of a bit of useless symbolism.
It's worth breaking down exactly what's meant by 'divergence', though. This isn't about the UK opting out of previously agreed standards - it's about the EU wanting to change standards after the agreement, and have the UK follow suit.
Granted, we can't rely on what's been reported as being accurate. But it sounds like the original EU demand was that the EU could unilaterally decide to augment a standard in one sector, and then charge tariffs on UK goods in that sector if the UK doesn't follow suit.
Which isn't how trade deals normally work, and also sounds like that Europe à la carte that we were told is impossible. In general, any long-term contract needs some mechanism for variation - but a contract where one side can unilaterally vary terms tends to be a crap contract.
The UK's counter-proposal was that the deal should be periodically reviewed after a set number of years, and any divergences addressed then - which is also problematic.
To be honest, my suspicion is that the EU actually wants something in between, and advanced a deliberately unreasonable proposal purely and simply so that Mr Johnson could beat them down to what they really want.
Well it's about either of them changing standards, what you phrase as the UK 'opting out' is simply the UK amending whatever standards it starts with. Just as the EU can amend whatever standards it starts with.
That's how legislation works, if you don't have mechanisms to actually keep it aligned. It's a constant question in any form of legislation. Here in Australia we have schemes where all the States and Territories legislate and then it's always a question about whether there's something that forces the initial consistency to remain in place. Heck, even with the federal statute book I work with, we have to have decisions about whether to repeat something so that it's consistent for now but might not be later, or use a mechanism that actually guarantees that when one part changes the other parts will change with it.
I've mentioned before how Australian legislation has a number of things in it that are there because it keeps the EU happy. As a matter of Australian law there's zero obligation to keep ourselves aligned with the EU, but we also know full well that if we don't then it will affect trade arrangements with the EU and our international agreements with them. I believe there are similar issues (actually I think more nefarious ones) with our agreement with the US at least, and possibly others. But essentially: yes, we do have to follow suit. In the sense that we have laws that say "if you want to export to the EU, you have to meet the EU requirements, whatever they currently are".
There's nothing particularly novel about this really. When countries say yes to having goods flow more freely, it's always on the basis of specifying their expectations about those goods. The UK hasn't really noticed this before because it's been in the EU, meaning the mechanisms have been there to guarantee that everything's in order.
Going forward, either the UK as a nation has to keep things in line, or individual UK businesses are somehow going to have to do the paperwork etc. to show they're in line with EU expectations.
Now, maybe there's a little bit of a difference if the EU is wanting the UK to not only ensure that exports to the EU are compliant, but that goods within the UK are compliant. But if so that's likely to be because the UK is right on the EU's doorstop and the notion of separately controlling exported goods from internal goods is problematic. Not least when you have the whole Northern Ireland situation.
Yes, that's always been the case. But, what's clear to you and me seems to be denied by the UK government who want (or so they say) a comprehensive trade deal that maintains tariff-free trade while allowing UK regulations to diverge from the EU and striking deals elsewhere which could allow imports of goods that don't meet EU standards. Cake, it's all just cake.
They merely want the right to divert in the future.
I suspect that the UK is more interested in exports.
But then diverging in the future will put in jeopardy the tariff-free trade...
At this point I'm being reminded of the Protestant who proudly declares in the Monty Python film that he can have sex any time he wants without contraception, unlike those poor Catholics who have no choice. It's just that he never actually does.
If this whole thing ends up being about the UK asserting that it can have different rules in principle, but then in practice the UK never exercises that new-found right because there are too many disincentives... well then Brexit is a truly magnificent waste of time for the sake of a bit of useless symbolism.
It's worth breaking down exactly what's meant by 'divergence', though. This isn't about the UK opting out of previously agreed standards - it's about the EU wanting to change standards after the agreement, and have the UK follow suit.
Granted, we can't rely on what's been reported as being accurate. But it sounds like the original EU demand was that the EU could unilaterally decide to augment a standard in one sector, and then charge tariffs on UK goods in that sector if the UK doesn't follow suit.
Which isn't how trade deals normally work, and also sounds like that Europe à la carte that we were told is impossible. In general, any long-term contract needs some mechanism for variation - but a contract where one side can unilaterally vary terms tends to be a crap contract.
The UK's counter-proposal was that the deal should be periodically reviewed after a set number of years, and any divergences addressed then - which is also problematic.
To be honest, my suspicion is that the EU actually wants something in between, and advanced a deliberately unreasonable proposal purely and simply so that Mr Johnson could beat them down to what they really want.
Well it's about either of them changing standards, what you phrase as the UK 'opting out' is simply the UK amending whatever standards it starts with. Just as the EU can amend whatever standards it starts with.
I'm possibly just being pedantic - I'm just wary of framing of the issue as 'the UK wanting to diverge'. AIUI, the row is about what happens when the EU wants to update its standards. In that circumstance, it is the EU that is diverging - at least, in the sense that it's the EU that has introduced the point of divergence from the original agreed common standards.
That's how legislation works, if you don't have mechanisms to actually keep it aligned.
Sure, and AFAICT everyone involved accepts the need for some kind of alignment mechanism, and the row is over how exactly that should work.
The best I can put it is: if you have a permanent employment contract that sets out your hours of work, then there probably needs to be some mechanism for changing those hours of work in the future. If the mechanism is 'The employer can unilaterally change your shift pattern, and reduce your hours if you don't like it', then that would be a crap contract from the perspective of the employee. And likewise, 'The employee can work whatever time they feel like, and not turn up for work at all if the hours they want aren't accepted by the employer', is crap from the employer's perspective. ISTM the EU's proposal, at least as reported, is moving into that territory.
Now you could well argue that the EU's vastly superior negotiating power is such that the UK will only ever be offered a crap deal. And that may be true. But that doesn't make the deal not-crap, or make Mr Johnson irrational for trying to get a better one if he can.
if you have a permanent employment contract that sets out your hours of work, then there probably needs to be some mechanism for changing those hours of work in the future
Actually, the usual mechanism is "here's a new contract. Sign it or you're unemployed in 28 days". /Tangent
Sure, and AFAICT everyone involved accepts the need for some kind of alignment mechanism, and the row is over how exactly that should work.
I suspect part of the issue is the rate of regulatory change across the EU -- which is going to be significant with an economy that size even if you leave out fast moving areas like tech.
So there's a budget of legislative time/effort that has to be allocated for that process (that could equally be used for other things). So there's an incentive to balance economic gain from a particular trade deal vs the friction it adds and the opportunity cost it racks up
ISTM the EU's proposal, at least as reported, is moving into that territory.
There was previously a workers co-op in which payment was in kind and there was a surplus of different items from year to year, now the co-op have to deal with a former member who wants to be outside the co-op but wants their re-numeration to be fixed at the level it was the year they left.
Maybe it's just where I work, but over the last 25 years there have been several changes to my contract of employment and I've not been asked to sign a new contract every time. Some changes were built into the contract initially allowing these changes (advancement up the pay scale, for example). Some were trivial or irrelevant (eg: when I started there was a small charge for a campus parking permit that was taken out of salary monthly before tax, a few years back that was changed so that it had to be paid annually from net pay). Many were made after consultation with the workforce and/or unions representing the work force (changes to pensions being an obvious example). So, there are mechanisms other than putting a new contract in front of staff every six months.
In relation to the UK-EU negotiations, if possible it would be advantageous for an agreement made now to allow for some minor variations in the EU or UK regulations without renegotiating the whole thing, or for there to be a mechanism for limited renegotiation of sector specific clauses leading to an addendum that's not a brand new treaty for anything outwith those minor variations. I don't think anyone wants to be in the position of renegotiating the entire treaty every few years. There probably will come a point where if the UK changes regulations (eg: to permit imports of goods that fall short of current regulations, such as chlorinated chicken or hormone stuffed beef from the US) or the EU continues the process of tightening environmental and workers rights regulations and the UK doesn't follow suit that the cumulative effect of lots of small changes would need a major renegotiation of the deal, if there is a deal.
Yes, that's always been the case. But, what's clear to you and me seems to be denied by the UK government who want (or so they say) a comprehensive trade deal that maintains tariff-free trade while allowing UK regulations to diverge from the EU and striking deals elsewhere which could allow imports of goods that don't meet EU standards. Cake, it's all just cake.
They merely want the right to divert in the future.
I suspect that the UK is more interested in exports.
But then diverging in the future will put in jeopardy the tariff-free trade...
At this point I'm being reminded of the Protestant who proudly declares in the Monty Python film that he can have sex any time he wants without contraception, unlike those poor Catholics who have no choice. It's just that he never actually does.
If this whole thing ends up being about the UK asserting that it can have different rules in principle, but then in practice the UK never exercises that new-found right because there are too many disincentives... well then Brexit is a truly magnificent waste of time for the sake of a bit of useless symbolism.
It's worth breaking down exactly what's meant by 'divergence', though. This isn't about the UK opting out of previously agreed standards - it's about the EU wanting to change standards after the agreement, and have the UK follow suit.
Granted, we can't rely on what's been reported as being accurate. But it sounds like the original EU demand was that the EU could unilaterally decide to augment a standard in one sector, and then charge tariffs on UK goods in that sector if the UK doesn't follow suit.
Which isn't how trade deals normally work, and also sounds like that Europe à la carte that we were told is impossible. In general, any long-term contract needs some mechanism for variation - but a contract where one side can unilaterally vary terms tends to be a crap contract.
The UK's counter-proposal was that the deal should be periodically reviewed after a set number of years, and any divergences addressed then - which is also problematic.
To be honest, my suspicion is that the EU actually wants something in between, and advanced a deliberately unreasonable proposal purely and simply so that Mr Johnson could beat them down to what they really want.
Well it's about either of them changing standards, what you phrase as the UK 'opting out' is simply the UK amending whatever standards it starts with. Just as the EU can amend whatever standards it starts with.
I'm possibly just being pedantic - I'm just wary of framing of the issue as 'the UK wanting to diverge'. AIUI, the row is about what happens when the EU wants to update its standards. In that circumstance, it is the EU that is diverging - at least, in the sense that it's the EU that has introduced the point of divergence from the original agreed common standards.
That's how legislation works, if you don't have mechanisms to actually keep it aligned.
Sure, and AFAICT everyone involved accepts the need for some kind of alignment mechanism, and the row is over how exactly that should work.
The best I can put it is: if you have a permanent employment contract that sets out your hours of work, then there probably needs to be some mechanism for changing those hours of work in the future. If the mechanism is 'The employer can unilaterally change your shift pattern, and reduce your hours if you don't like it', then that would be a crap contract from the perspective of the employee. And likewise, 'The employee can work whatever time they feel like, and not turn up for work at all if the hours they want aren't accepted by the employer', is crap from the employer's perspective. ISTM the EU's proposal, at least as reported, is moving into that territory.
Now you could well argue that the EU's vastly superior negotiating power is such that the UK will only ever be offered a crap deal. And that may be true. But that doesn't make the deal not-crap, or make Mr Johnson irrational for trying to get a better one if he can.
Well if the primary question is "what does it take for UK goods to get into the EU", it's pretty much inevitable that the EU dictates the terms.
I don't know to what extent the UK can turn around and say "well here's what it takes for EU goods to get into the UK".
Yes, that's always been the case. But, what's clear to you and me seems to be denied by the UK government who want (or so they say) a comprehensive trade deal that maintains tariff-free trade while allowing UK regulations to diverge from the EU and striking deals elsewhere which could allow imports of goods that don't meet EU standards. Cake, it's all just cake.
They merely want the right to divert in the future.
I suspect that the UK is more interested in exports.
But then diverging in the future will put in jeopardy the tariff-free trade...
At this point I'm being reminded of the Protestant who proudly declares in the Monty Python film that he can have sex any time he wants without contraception, unlike those poor Catholics who have no choice. It's just that he never actually does.
If this whole thing ends up being about the UK asserting that it can have different rules in principle, but then in practice the UK never exercises that new-found right because there are too many disincentives... well then Brexit is a truly magnificent waste of time for the sake of a bit of useless symbolism.
It's worth breaking down exactly what's meant by 'divergence', though. This isn't about the UK opting out of previously agreed standards - it's about the EU wanting to change standards after the agreement, and have the UK follow suit.
Granted, we can't rely on what's been reported as being accurate. But it sounds like the original EU demand was that the EU could unilaterally decide to augment a standard in one sector, and then charge tariffs on UK goods in that sector if the UK doesn't follow suit.
Which isn't how trade deals normally work, and also sounds like that Europe à la carte that we were told is impossible. In general, any long-term contract needs some mechanism for variation - but a contract where one side can unilaterally vary terms tends to be a crap contract.
The UK's counter-proposal was that the deal should be periodically reviewed after a set number of years, and any divergences addressed then - which is also problematic.
To be honest, my suspicion is that the EU actually wants something in between, and advanced a deliberately unreasonable proposal purely and simply so that Mr Johnson could beat them down to what they really want.
Well it's about either of them changing standards, what you phrase as the UK 'opting out' is simply the UK amending whatever standards it starts with. Just as the EU can amend whatever standards it starts with.
I'm possibly just being pedantic - I'm just wary of framing of the issue as 'the UK wanting to diverge'. AIUI, the row is about what happens when the EU wants to update its standards. In that circumstance, it is the EU that is diverging - at least, in the sense that it's the EU that has introduced the point of divergence from the original agreed common standards.
That's how legislation works, if you don't have mechanisms to actually keep it aligned.
Sure, and AFAICT everyone involved accepts the need for some kind of alignment mechanism, and the row is over how exactly that should work.
The best I can put it is: if you have a permanent employment contract that sets out your hours of work, then there probably needs to be some mechanism for changing those hours of work in the future. If the mechanism is 'The employer can unilaterally change your shift pattern, and reduce your hours if you don't like it', then that would be a crap contract from the perspective of the employee. And likewise, 'The employee can work whatever time they feel like, and not turn up for work at all if the hours they want aren't accepted by the employer', is crap from the employer's perspective. ISTM the EU's proposal, at least as reported, is moving into that territory.
Now you could well argue that the EU's vastly superior negotiating power is such that the UK will only ever be offered a crap deal. And that may be true. But that doesn't make the deal not-crap, or make Mr Johnson irrational for trying to get a better one if he can.
Well if the primary question is "what does it take for UK goods to get into the EU", it's pretty much inevitable that the EU dictates the terms.
I don't know to what extent the UK can turn around and say "well here's what it takes for EU goods to get into the UK".
Given that the EU is still negotiating, rather than saying 'Take it or leave it', I'd say the UK's leverage is greater than zero. (The idea that 'they need us more than we need them' is Brexiteer fantasy but it doesn't follow that the UK has no power at all.)
Yes, that's always been the case. But, what's clear to you and me seems to be denied by the UK government who want (or so they say) a comprehensive trade deal that maintains tariff-free trade while allowing UK regulations to diverge from the EU and striking deals elsewhere which could allow imports of goods that don't meet EU standards. Cake, it's all just cake.
They merely want the right to divert in the future.
I suspect that the UK is more interested in exports.
But then diverging in the future will put in jeopardy the tariff-free trade...
At this point I'm being reminded of the Protestant who proudly declares in the Monty Python film that he can have sex any time he wants without contraception, unlike those poor Catholics who have no choice. It's just that he never actually does.
If this whole thing ends up being about the UK asserting that it can have different rules in principle, but then in practice the UK never exercises that new-found right because there are too many disincentives... well then Brexit is a truly magnificent waste of time for the sake of a bit of useless symbolism.
It's worth breaking down exactly what's meant by 'divergence', though. This isn't about the UK opting out of previously agreed standards - it's about the EU wanting to change standards after the agreement, and have the UK follow suit.
Granted, we can't rely on what's been reported as being accurate. But it sounds like the original EU demand was that the EU could unilaterally decide to augment a standard in one sector, and then charge tariffs on UK goods in that sector if the UK doesn't follow suit.
Which isn't how trade deals normally work, and also sounds like that Europe à la carte that we were told is impossible. In general, any long-term contract needs some mechanism for variation - but a contract where one side can unilaterally vary terms tends to be a crap contract.
The UK's counter-proposal was that the deal should be periodically reviewed after a set number of years, and any divergences addressed then - which is also problematic.
To be honest, my suspicion is that the EU actually wants something in between, and advanced a deliberately unreasonable proposal purely and simply so that Mr Johnson could beat them down to what they really want.
Well it's about either of them changing standards, what you phrase as the UK 'opting out' is simply the UK amending whatever standards it starts with. Just as the EU can amend whatever standards it starts with.
I'm possibly just being pedantic - I'm just wary of framing of the issue as 'the UK wanting to diverge'. AIUI, the row is about what happens when the EU wants to update its standards. In that circumstance, it is the EU that is diverging - at least, in the sense that it's the EU that has introduced the point of divergence from the original agreed common standards.
That's how legislation works, if you don't have mechanisms to actually keep it aligned.
Sure, and AFAICT everyone involved accepts the need for some kind of alignment mechanism, and the row is over how exactly that should work.
The best I can put it is: if you have a permanent employment contract that sets out your hours of work, then there probably needs to be some mechanism for changing those hours of work in the future. If the mechanism is 'The employer can unilaterally change your shift pattern, and reduce your hours if you don't like it', then that would be a crap contract from the perspective of the employee. And likewise, 'The employee can work whatever time they feel like, and not turn up for work at all if the hours they want aren't accepted by the employer', is crap from the employer's perspective. ISTM the EU's proposal, at least as reported, is moving into that territory.
Now you could well argue that the EU's vastly superior negotiating power is such that the UK will only ever be offered a crap deal. And that may be true. But that doesn't make the deal not-crap, or make Mr Johnson irrational for trying to get a better one if he can.
Well if the primary question is "what does it take for UK goods to get into the EU", it's pretty much inevitable that the EU dictates the terms.
I don't know to what extent the UK can turn around and say "well here's what it takes for EU goods to get into the UK".
Given that the EU is still negotiating, rather than saying 'Take it or leave it', I'd say the UK's leverage is greater than zero. (The idea that 'they need us more than we need them' is Brexiteer fantasy but it doesn't follow that the UK has no power at all.)
Yes, that's always been the case. But, what's clear to you and me seems to be denied by the UK government who want (or so they say) a comprehensive trade deal that maintains tariff-free trade while allowing UK regulations to diverge from the EU and striking deals elsewhere which could allow imports of goods that don't meet EU standards. Cake, it's all just cake.
They merely want the right to divert in the future.
I suspect that the UK is more interested in exports.
But then diverging in the future will put in jeopardy the tariff-free trade...
At this point I'm being reminded of the Protestant who proudly declares in the Monty Python film that he can have sex any time he wants without contraception, unlike those poor Catholics who have no choice. It's just that he never actually does.
If this whole thing ends up being about the UK asserting that it can have different rules in principle, but then in practice the UK never exercises that new-found right because there are too many disincentives... well then Brexit is a truly magnificent waste of time for the sake of a bit of useless symbolism.
It's worth breaking down exactly what's meant by 'divergence', though. This isn't about the UK opting out of previously agreed standards - it's about the EU wanting to change standards after the agreement, and have the UK follow suit.
Granted, we can't rely on what's been reported as being accurate. But it sounds like the original EU demand was that the EU could unilaterally decide to augment a standard in one sector, and then charge tariffs on UK goods in that sector if the UK doesn't follow suit.
Which isn't how trade deals normally work, and also sounds like that Europe à la carte that we were told is impossible. In general, any long-term contract needs some mechanism for variation - but a contract where one side can unilaterally vary terms tends to be a crap contract.
The UK's counter-proposal was that the deal should be periodically reviewed after a set number of years, and any divergences addressed then - which is also problematic.
To be honest, my suspicion is that the EU actually wants something in between, and advanced a deliberately unreasonable proposal purely and simply so that Mr Johnson could beat them down to what they really want.
Well it's about either of them changing standards, what you phrase as the UK 'opting out' is simply the UK amending whatever standards it starts with. Just as the EU can amend whatever standards it starts with.
I'm possibly just being pedantic - I'm just wary of framing of the issue as 'the UK wanting to diverge'. AIUI, the row is about what happens when the EU wants to update its standards. In that circumstance, it is the EU that is diverging - at least, in the sense that it's the EU that has introduced the point of divergence from the original agreed common standards.
That's how legislation works, if you don't have mechanisms to actually keep it aligned.
Sure, and AFAICT everyone involved accepts the need for some kind of alignment mechanism, and the row is over how exactly that should work.
The best I can put it is: if you have a permanent employment contract that sets out your hours of work, then there probably needs to be some mechanism for changing those hours of work in the future. If the mechanism is 'The employer can unilaterally change your shift pattern, and reduce your hours if you don't like it', then that would be a crap contract from the perspective of the employee. And likewise, 'The employee can work whatever time they feel like, and not turn up for work at all if the hours they want aren't accepted by the employer', is crap from the employer's perspective. ISTM the EU's proposal, at least as reported, is moving into that territory.
Now you could well argue that the EU's vastly superior negotiating power is such that the UK will only ever be offered a crap deal. And that may be true. But that doesn't make the deal not-crap, or make Mr Johnson irrational for trying to get a better one if he can.
Well if the primary question is "what does it take for UK goods to get into the EU", it's pretty much inevitable that the EU dictates the terms.
I don't know to what extent the UK can turn around and say "well here's what it takes for EU goods to get into the UK".
Given that the EU is still negotiating, rather than saying 'Take it or leave it', I'd say the UK's leverage is greater than zero. (The idea that 'they need us more than we need them' is Brexiteer fantasy but it doesn't follow that the UK has no power at all.)
Yes, I would have expected that the UK has at least some leverage.
Including owning valuable fishing waters, apparently...
Yes, that's always been the case. But, what's clear to you and me seems to be denied by the UK government who want (or so they say) a comprehensive trade deal that maintains tariff-free trade while allowing UK regulations to diverge from the EU and striking deals elsewhere which could allow imports of goods that don't meet EU standards. Cake, it's all just cake.
They merely want the right to divert in the future.
I suspect that the UK is more interested in exports.
But then diverging in the future will put in jeopardy the tariff-free trade...
At this point I'm being reminded of the Protestant who proudly declares in the Monty Python film that he can have sex any time he wants without contraception, unlike those poor Catholics who have no choice. It's just that he never actually does.
If this whole thing ends up being about the UK asserting that it can have different rules in principle, but then in practice the UK never exercises that new-found right because there are too many disincentives... well then Brexit is a truly magnificent waste of time for the sake of a bit of useless symbolism.
It's worth breaking down exactly what's meant by 'divergence', though. This isn't about the UK opting out of previously agreed standards - it's about the EU wanting to change standards after the agreement, and have the UK follow suit.
Granted, we can't rely on what's been reported as being accurate. But it sounds like the original EU demand was that the EU could unilaterally decide to augment a standard in one sector, and then charge tariffs on UK goods in that sector if the UK doesn't follow suit.
Which isn't how trade deals normally work, and also sounds like that Europe à la carte that we were told is impossible. In general, any long-term contract needs some mechanism for variation - but a contract where one side can unilaterally vary terms tends to be a crap contract.
The UK's counter-proposal was that the deal should be periodically reviewed after a set number of years, and any divergences addressed then - which is also problematic.
To be honest, my suspicion is that the EU actually wants something in between, and advanced a deliberately unreasonable proposal purely and simply so that Mr Johnson could beat them down to what they really want.
Well it's about either of them changing standards, what you phrase as the UK 'opting out' is simply the UK amending whatever standards it starts with. Just as the EU can amend whatever standards it starts with.
I'm possibly just being pedantic - I'm just wary of framing of the issue as 'the UK wanting to diverge'. AIUI, the row is about what happens when the EU wants to update its standards. In that circumstance, it is the EU that is diverging - at least, in the sense that it's the EU that has introduced the point of divergence from the original agreed common standards.
That's how legislation works, if you don't have mechanisms to actually keep it aligned.
Sure, and AFAICT everyone involved accepts the need for some kind of alignment mechanism, and the row is over how exactly that should work.
The best I can put it is: if you have a permanent employment contract that sets out your hours of work, then there probably needs to be some mechanism for changing those hours of work in the future. If the mechanism is 'The employer can unilaterally change your shift pattern, and reduce your hours if you don't like it', then that would be a crap contract from the perspective of the employee. And likewise, 'The employee can work whatever time they feel like, and not turn up for work at all if the hours they want aren't accepted by the employer', is crap from the employer's perspective. ISTM the EU's proposal, at least as reported, is moving into that territory.
Now you could well argue that the EU's vastly superior negotiating power is such that the UK will only ever be offered a crap deal. And that may be true. But that doesn't make the deal not-crap, or make Mr Johnson irrational for trying to get a better one if he can.
Well if the primary question is "what does it take for UK goods to get into the EU", it's pretty much inevitable that the EU dictates the terms.
I don't know to what extent the UK can turn around and say "well here's what it takes for EU goods to get into the UK".
Given that the EU is still negotiating, rather than saying 'Take it or leave it', I'd say the UK's leverage is greater than zero. (The idea that 'they need us more than we need them' is Brexiteer fantasy but it doesn't follow that the UK has no power at all.)
@Ricardus the Swiss example is informative. The Swiss have agreed a series of sector-based agreements with the EU. These are all bound together - if they back out of one, the whole lot are void. The agreements have worked well for a couple of decades, but there is no mechanism for updating them. As @orfeo says, the relevant standards are constantly being upgraded, for instance as a result of scientific innovation.
The Swiss keep alive a particular vision of sovereignty by making the incorporation of these regulatory updates into domestic law subject to a domestic vote, but the fact is that if they don't, they will lose the entirety of their trade agreement with the EU.
I don't think the issue is divergence; it's the importance a nation attaches to sovereignty and how sovereignty is defined.
Like Switzerland, of course the UK does not have zero leverage, because No Deal will have dire economic consequences on both sides (albeit a lot more for the UK). The EU's economic and political interests would be better served by a deal, and so they persist.
Our Prime Minister's Christmas Present to the people of the United Kingdom seems quite likely to be a state of siege and a completely pointless Fishing War. It will come gift-wrapped in a Union Flag and an uplifting message from our great War Leader, Winston Churchill Returned.
Our Prime Minister's Christmas Present to the people of the United Kingdom seems quite likely to be a state of siege and a completely pointless Fishing War. It will come gift-wrapped in a Union Flag and an uplifting message from our great War Leader, Winston Churchill Returned.
Do you think the UK should just surrender on the fishing issue ?
Our Prime Minister's Christmas Present to the people of the United Kingdom seems quite likely to be a state of siege and a completely pointless Fishing War. It will come gift-wrapped in a Union Flag and an uplifting message from our great War Leader, Winston Churchill Returned.
Do you think the UK should just surrender on the fishing issue ?
No but it shouldn’t stop there being a deal either. We should come to an agreement.
Surrender is a very strange word to use when talking about trade agreements. The idea of negotiation is to come to agreement.
But both the U.K. and EU overfish the waters, fishing limits exceed scientific advice for about a third of fish stocks. Both also use destructive practices like bottom-trawling.
It’s time we stopped the waste and started fishing sustainably, which ever bit of water we take them from.
Surrender is a very strange word to use when talking about trade agreements. The idea of negotiation is to come to agreement.
But both the U.K. and EU overfish the waters, fishing limits exceed scientific advice for about a third of fish stocks. Both also use destructive practices like bottom-trawling.
It’s time we stopped the waste and started fishing sustainably, which ever bit of water we take them from.
To do what you suggest, we needs to control our waters and the EU needs to control their waters
Our Prime Minister's Christmas Present to the people of the United Kingdom seems quite likely to be a state of siege and a completely pointless Fishing War. It will come gift-wrapped in a Union Flag and an uplifting message from our great War Leader, Winston Churchill Returned.
Do you think the UK should just surrender on the fishing issue ?
No but it shouldn’t stop there being a deal either. We should come to an agreement.
Surrender is a very strange word to use when talking about trade agreements. The idea of negotiation is to come to agreement.
But both the U.K. and EU overfish the waters, fishing limits exceed scientific advice for about a third of fish stocks. Both also use destructive practices like bottom-trawling.
It’s time we stopped the waste and started fishing sustainably, which ever bit of water we take them from.
To do what you suggest, we needs to control our waters and the EU needs to control their waters
Or we work together to solve the common problem and not worry too much about exactly who does the controlling of the fishing fleets.
Surrender is a very strange word to use when talking about trade agreements. The idea of negotiation is to come to agreement.
But both the U.K. and EU overfish the waters, fishing limits exceed scientific advice for about a third of fish stocks. Both also use destructive practices like bottom-trawling.
It’s time we stopped the waste and started fishing sustainably, which ever bit of water we take them from.
To do what you suggest, we needs to control our waters and the EU needs to control their waters
Or we work together to solve the common problem and not worry too much about exactly who does the controlling of the fishing fleets.
The problem has been that the EU, especially the French do not respect our right to control our waters
The problem has been that the EU, especially the French do not respect our right to control our waters
No, the EU respects a Brexited UK's right to control its waters. What it won't do is allow a Brexited UK the right to pull out of the Common Fisheries Agreement - and still expect unchanged access to the Single Market.
Sovereignty isn't just about 'taking back control': it's also about accepting the reliquishment of control and influence beyond the area within which one can legitimately assert sovereignty. That's the half of reality the Brexiters have consistently played down or deliberately ignored.
Actually the fish that choose to swim in our waters are mostly landed on the Continent and eaten by Europeans. The ones we eat are mostly caught in Norwegian or Icelandic waters.
Sovereignty isn't just about 'taking back control': it's also about accepting the reliquishment of control and influence beyond the area within which one can legitimately assert sovereignty. That's the half of reality the Brexiters have consistently played down or deliberately ignored.
A tangential issue is that the expansion in what was counted as 'territorial waters' occurred in roughly the same era as the UK joining the EU (the limit of 3 miles was expanded to 12 miles in the 60s and 80s), and that's leaving aside other historical arrangements.
We sold the northern EU the rights to fish in our waters a while back for cash up front. Now we're trying to claim the rights back, without paying the refund.
We don't currently have nearly the fleet capacity to make full use of our waters anyway. So while we're building it up - the work of a generation or nearly - we'd have to rent the fishing out, either back to the EU, who would want them much cheaper than they would as part of a deal, or else to the US or Japanese fleets, who would not only also want them cheap, but have greedier fishing practices, and who would have no long-term interest in preserving our fishing stocks for the future.
Channel Island boats have been fishing in French waters under bilateral agreement, which comes up for renewal periodically. I recollect a 'scallop war' a year or so ago.
Fishing is just part of the "island nation" bullshit. At the monent we are proving ourselves to be toddlers on a fast dessicating rock Does anyone have a ticket off the island for someone with no useful Irish ancestry? I've got to get away.
You also need to sell the fish. For example, in Yorkshire there are big catches of lobster and crab, which are sold on the continent. I wonder if those fishermen voted for Brexit and why.
Channel Island boats have been fishing in French waters under bilateral agreement, which comes up for renewal periodically. I recollect a 'scallop war' a year or so ago.
Nearly. Jersey has a bilateral treaty with France known as the Granville Bay agreement. Guernsey was part of the London Fisheries Convention which was absorbed by the Common Fisheries Policy, denounced by the UK after Brexit and now defunct, and currently has a temporary system in place until... December 31.
Meanwhile, in a move echoing its attempts to walk back the agreement over the NI border, the UK government is now legally ready to throw both baliwicks under the bus by granting itself unprecedented powers to decide CI fisheries policy unilaterally.
Rather have it with mayonaisse and oatcakes myself.
Hmm. Sounds rather tasty - I'll give it a try...
Meanwhile, someone who does speak Fish (Piscine ?) could perhaps persuade the Cod to assume British nationality, and confine themselves to Our Sacred And Sovereign Waters, as decreed by Heaven?
The point has been made (not entirely seriously, I hope) that the 48-hour cessation of all accompanied traffic to France, much of it via the Port of Dover, together with flights and Eurostar trains, is actually a Cunning Plan on the part of the dastardly tyrants of the EU to show poor little England just what Brexshit might mean...
Why, True-Blue Englishmen may be prevented from exercising their God-given right to eat Sprouts on Christmas Day!
Comments
But then diverging in the future will put in jeopardy the tariff-free trade...
At this point I'm being reminded of the Protestant who proudly declares in the Monty Python film that he can have sex any time he wants without contraception, unlike those poor Catholics who have no choice. It's just that he never actually does.
If this whole thing ends up being about the UK asserting that it can have different rules in principle, but then in practice the UK never exercises that new-found right because there are too many disincentives... well then Brexit is a truly magnificent waste of time for the sake of a bit of useless symbolism.
In a nutshell Indeed
Surely he'll have to isolate on return - that's the least we can hope for.
It's worth breaking down exactly what's meant by 'divergence', though. This isn't about the UK opting out of previously agreed standards - it's about the EU wanting to change standards after the agreement, and have the UK follow suit.
Granted, we can't rely on what's been reported as being accurate. But it sounds like the original EU demand was that the EU could unilaterally decide to augment a standard in one sector, and then charge tariffs on UK goods in that sector if the UK doesn't follow suit.
Which isn't how trade deals normally work, and also sounds like that Europe à la carte that we were told is impossible. In general, any long-term contract needs some mechanism for variation - but a contract where one side can unilaterally vary terms tends to be a crap contract.
The UK's counter-proposal was that the deal should be periodically reviewed after a set number of years, and any divergences addressed then - which is also problematic.
To be honest, my suspicion is that the EU actually wants something in between, and advanced a deliberately unreasonable proposal purely and simply so that Mr Johnson could beat them down to what they really want.
Well (as the person to whom the original remark about gilets jaunes was addressed) that is why I didn't reply to Telford. But just for the record, I wasn't praising the French police, merely pointing out that it is not their job to make the lives of British fishermen easier. They are indeed more violent than the British police, as la vie en rouge says.
As to my ill-considered responses to others, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.*
(*My fault, my fault, my most grievous fault - or thereabouts).
I've not heard that one....
Well it's about either of them changing standards, what you phrase as the UK 'opting out' is simply the UK amending whatever standards it starts with. Just as the EU can amend whatever standards it starts with.
That's how legislation works, if you don't have mechanisms to actually keep it aligned. It's a constant question in any form of legislation. Here in Australia we have schemes where all the States and Territories legislate and then it's always a question about whether there's something that forces the initial consistency to remain in place. Heck, even with the federal statute book I work with, we have to have decisions about whether to repeat something so that it's consistent for now but might not be later, or use a mechanism that actually guarantees that when one part changes the other parts will change with it.
I've mentioned before how Australian legislation has a number of things in it that are there because it keeps the EU happy. As a matter of Australian law there's zero obligation to keep ourselves aligned with the EU, but we also know full well that if we don't then it will affect trade arrangements with the EU and our international agreements with them. I believe there are similar issues (actually I think more nefarious ones) with our agreement with the US at least, and possibly others. But essentially: yes, we do have to follow suit. In the sense that we have laws that say "if you want to export to the EU, you have to meet the EU requirements, whatever they currently are".
There's nothing particularly novel about this really. When countries say yes to having goods flow more freely, it's always on the basis of specifying their expectations about those goods. The UK hasn't really noticed this before because it's been in the EU, meaning the mechanisms have been there to guarantee that everything's in order.
Going forward, either the UK as a nation has to keep things in line, or individual UK businesses are somehow going to have to do the paperwork etc. to show they're in line with EU expectations.
Now, maybe there's a little bit of a difference if the EU is wanting the UK to not only ensure that exports to the EU are compliant, but that goods within the UK are compliant. But if so that's likely to be because the UK is right on the EU's doorstop and the notion of separately controlling exported goods from internal goods is problematic. Not least when you have the whole Northern Ireland situation.
I'm possibly just being pedantic - I'm just wary of framing of the issue as 'the UK wanting to diverge'. AIUI, the row is about what happens when the EU wants to update its standards. In that circumstance, it is the EU that is diverging - at least, in the sense that it's the EU that has introduced the point of divergence from the original agreed common standards.
Sure, and AFAICT everyone involved accepts the need for some kind of alignment mechanism, and the row is over how exactly that should work.
The best I can put it is: if you have a permanent employment contract that sets out your hours of work, then there probably needs to be some mechanism for changing those hours of work in the future. If the mechanism is 'The employer can unilaterally change your shift pattern, and reduce your hours if you don't like it', then that would be a crap contract from the perspective of the employee. And likewise, 'The employee can work whatever time they feel like, and not turn up for work at all if the hours they want aren't accepted by the employer', is crap from the employer's perspective. ISTM the EU's proposal, at least as reported, is moving into that territory.
Now you could well argue that the EU's vastly superior negotiating power is such that the UK will only ever be offered a crap deal. And that may be true. But that doesn't make the deal not-crap, or make Mr Johnson irrational for trying to get a better one if he can.
Actually, the usual mechanism is "here's a new contract. Sign it or you're unemployed in 28 days". /Tangent
I suspect part of the issue is the rate of regulatory change across the EU -- which is going to be significant with an economy that size even if you leave out fast moving areas like tech.
So there's a budget of legislative time/effort that has to be allocated for that process (that could equally be used for other things). So there's an incentive to balance economic gain from a particular trade deal vs the friction it adds and the opportunity cost it racks up
There was previously a workers co-op in which payment was in kind and there was a surplus of different items from year to year, now the co-op have to deal with a former member who wants to be outside the co-op but wants their re-numeration to be fixed at the level it was the year they left.
In relation to the UK-EU negotiations, if possible it would be advantageous for an agreement made now to allow for some minor variations in the EU or UK regulations without renegotiating the whole thing, or for there to be a mechanism for limited renegotiation of sector specific clauses leading to an addendum that's not a brand new treaty for anything outwith those minor variations. I don't think anyone wants to be in the position of renegotiating the entire treaty every few years. There probably will come a point where if the UK changes regulations (eg: to permit imports of goods that fall short of current regulations, such as chlorinated chicken or hormone stuffed beef from the US) or the EU continues the process of tightening environmental and workers rights regulations and the UK doesn't follow suit that the cumulative effect of lots of small changes would need a major renegotiation of the deal, if there is a deal.
Well if the primary question is "what does it take for UK goods to get into the EU", it's pretty much inevitable that the EU dictates the terms.
I don't know to what extent the UK can turn around and say "well here's what it takes for EU goods to get into the UK".
Given that the EU is still negotiating, rather than saying 'Take it or leave it', I'd say the UK's leverage is greater than zero. (The idea that 'they need us more than we need them' is Brexiteer fantasy but it doesn't follow that the UK has no power at all.)
After that - ???????
Yes, I would have expected that the UK has at least some leverage.
Including owning valuable fishing waters, apparently...
@Ricardus the Swiss example is informative. The Swiss have agreed a series of sector-based agreements with the EU. These are all bound together - if they back out of one, the whole lot are void. The agreements have worked well for a couple of decades, but there is no mechanism for updating them. As @orfeo says, the relevant standards are constantly being upgraded, for instance as a result of scientific innovation.
The Swiss keep alive a particular vision of sovereignty by making the incorporation of these regulatory updates into domestic law subject to a domestic vote, but the fact is that if they don't, they will lose the entirety of their trade agreement with the EU.
I don't think the issue is divergence; it's the importance a nation attaches to sovereignty and how sovereignty is defined.
Like Switzerland, of course the UK does not have zero leverage, because No Deal will have dire economic consequences on both sides (albeit a lot more for the UK). The EU's economic and political interests would be better served by a deal, and so they persist.
Do you think the UK should just surrender on the fishing issue ?
No but it shouldn’t stop there being a deal either. We should come to an agreement.
But both the U.K. and EU overfish the waters, fishing limits exceed scientific advice for about a third of fish stocks. Both also use destructive practices like bottom-trawling.
It’s time we stopped the waste and started fishing sustainably, which ever bit of water we take them from.
Let's hope so.
The problem has been that the EU, especially the French do not respect our right to control our waters
Sovereignty isn't just about 'taking back control': it's also about accepting the reliquishment of control and influence beyond the area within which one can legitimately assert sovereignty. That's the half of reality the Brexiters have consistently played down or deliberately ignored.
Mackerel and chips, anyone?
A tangential issue is that the expansion in what was counted as 'territorial waters' occurred in roughly the same era as the UK joining the EU (the limit of 3 miles was expanded to 12 miles in the 60s and 80s), and that's leaving aside other historical arrangements.
Rather have it with mayonaisse and oatcakes myself.
Which of those do you think is our best option?
Nearly. Jersey has a bilateral treaty with France known as the Granville Bay agreement. Guernsey was part of the London Fisheries Convention which was absorbed by the Common Fisheries Policy, denounced by the UK after Brexit and now defunct, and currently has a temporary system in place until... December 31.
Meanwhile, in a move echoing its attempts to walk back the agreement over the NI border, the UK government is now legally ready to throw both baliwicks under the bus by granting itself unprecedented powers to decide CI fisheries policy unilaterally.
Hmm. Sounds rather tasty - I'll give it a try...
Meanwhile, someone who does speak Fish (Piscine ?) could perhaps persuade the Cod to assume British nationality, and confine themselves to Our Sacred And Sovereign Waters, as decreed by Heaven?
Fish need to Unionise. What do we want (blob blob) when do we want it (blob)
I read that as 'Merkel and chips'!
Why, True-Blue Englishmen may be prevented from exercising their God-given right to eat Sprouts on Christmas Day!
Given that we grow sprouts in this country, those are probably some of the vegetables that will still be available for us to eat....
At first glance, I read that as a new sauce for fish.
Not everyone would call missing out sprouts a hardship.