The Brexit aftermath thread

[Pann]

So, your solution is?

!!!! Happy sarcastic exclamation marks!!!!

I have none.

I think that another ref. is an extremely bad idea but it might just be the only way to break the deadlock. Although I suspect that those most in favour of a people's vote will not like the result.

Hmm, are those happy sarcastic exclamation marks? I've never encountered one before!

[Demolitia]

But we are (at least currently) completely aligned with EU regulation so it would remove the need for a border, at least in the short term. I'd say it's safe to say we will maintain this and there would be language expressing this desire in the PD but hell, it's Brexit and we haven't even got that far yet.

Right now you are, but this is not based on goodwill and current situation. What if next year you decide chlorinated chicken is the way to go? There is no mechanism in place guaranteeing the UK will keep writing EU standards into its own laws in the future. We can't wait for this to happen.
The withdrawal agreement is just supposed to define how you leave the EU. It is just there to make sure things keep going smoothly while we come up with a comprehensive trade agreement. It should have been easy and simple but I guess the Irish business made it clear the next step is going to take a lot longer than planned.

- - - Updated - - -

So, your solution is?

!!!! Happy sarcastic exclamation marks!!!!

How about we add an annex to the Lisbon treaty acknowledging the UK as a special snowflake and the birthplace of unicorns?
Will you stay if we do this? Please?

[Kronik85]

Right now you are, but this is not based on goodwill and current situation. What if next year you decide chlorinated chicken is the way to go? There is no mechanism in place guaranteeing the UK will keep writing EU standards into its own laws in the future. We can't wait for this to happen.
The withdrawal agreement is just supposed to define how you leave the EU. It is just there to make sure things keep going smoothly while we come up with a comprehensive trade agreement. It should have been easy and simple but I guess the Irish business made it clear the next step is going to take a lot longer than planned.

The UK accepting the oft discussed chlorinated chicken would be dependent on the UK making a trade deal with the USA which it would be unable to do if it was part of a CU (which is why many MPs on the Conservative side don't want a CU). So in short, there is no reason to expect UK standards to fall below those of the EU any time soon.

[Pann]

The UK accepting the oft discussed chlorinated chicken would be dependent on the UK making a trade deal with the USA which it would be unable to do if it was part of a CU (which is why many MPs on the Conservative side don't want a CU). So in short, there is no reason to expect UK standards to fall below those of the EU any time soon.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that remaining in the CU would only require the UK to adopt the same tariffs, it would be free to diverge standards if it desired to do so, and it is also possible that a CU could only cover certain goods.

[Demolitia]

The UK accepting the oft discussed chlorinated chicken would be dependent on the UK making a trade deal with the USA which it would be unable to do if it was part of a CU (which is why many MPs on the Conservative side don't want a CU). So in short, there is no reason to expect UK standards to fall below those of the EU any time soon.

It was a sarcastic example. My point is that free movement of goods is based on regulatory alignment, right now it is ensured by your membership. The CU will not guarantee this in the future. It might not be a concern any time soon, but there will be a border unless there is something in writing, in clear legal terms, which says that they UK will write into its own law all EU regulations. We will also require that you accept the ECJ's authority for disputes.
Back to square 1?

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

It was a sarcastic example. My point is that free movement of goods is based on regulatory alignment, right now it is ensured by your membership. The CU will not guarantee this in the future. It might not be a concern any time soon, but there will be a border unless there is something in writing, in clear legal terms, which says that they UK will write into its own law all EU regulations. We will also require that you accept the ECJ's authority for disputes.
Back to square 1?

More like square -1, because the UK won't be able to shape those regulations.

[Kronik85]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that remaining in the CU would only require the UK to adopt the same tariffs, it would be free to diverge standards if it desired to do so, and it is also possible that a CU could only cover certain goods.

It was a sarcastic example. My point is that free movement of goods is based on regulatory alignment, right now it is ensured by your membership. The CU will not guarantee this in the future. It might not be a concern any time soon, but there will be a border unless there is something in writing, in clear legal terms, which says that they UK will write into its own law all EU regulations. We will also require that you accept the ECJ's authority for disputes.
Back to square 1?

This article seems like a good read for what we are discussing here. Not being some kind of Trade Negotiator I'm happy to say I know relatively little on the minutiae of the matter.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...BoCRCYQAvD_BwE

As to what me and Demolitia are discussing I thought that regulatory alignment was a commitment in the Political Declaration but it's right to point out that this is completely non binding. My issue on the matter is that as to how things stand right now, there is no need to assume we will be diverging from EU standards in the near future.

@Pann I'm assuming that the talk of a CU stopping us from striking trade agreements is because we won't really have anything to negotiate said agreements with since we don't control tariffs and such.

[Masark]

More like square -1, because the UK won't be able to shape those regulations.

Given the current state of the UK government, isn't that really better for everyone?

[Demolitia]

This article seems like a good read for what we are discussing here. Not being some kind of Trade Negotiator I'm happy to say I know relatively little on the minutiae of the matter.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...BoCRCYQAvD_BwE

As to what me and Demolitia are discussing I thought that regulatory alignment was a commitment in the Political Declaration but it's right to point out that this is completely non binding. My issue on the matter is that as to how things stand right now, there is no need to assume we will be diverging from EU standards in the near future.

@Pann I'm assuming that the talk of a CU stopping us from striking trade agreements is because we won't really have anything to negotiate said agreements with since we don't control tariffs and such.

Precisely, the political declaration is just a non binding declaration of intent on what the future, permanent trade deal should be. It is very vague and open ended, intentionally.
The withdrawal agreement (the deal) in its current shape ensures that there is no border in ireland, that we keep trading on current terms, that you don't pay EU membership anymore and that you can start working on trade deals with other countries.
A customs union alone would no achieve that. While I'm pretty sure both sides would stick to the same standards, at least in the immediate future, we need some legal guarantees and mechanisms to ensure that consumers know what they are buying. There is not trusting each other on this. Right now we have common treaties, institutions, regulators and arbiters that decide which rules we all stick to. Once you leave, you will not be bound by them if you are just in a customs union, and we will not trust you. We will put in border checks to protect local businesses and consumers.
You can join the single market and pay a fee for the regulatory work the EU does, but you will have to accept the ECJ's authority if there are any disputes.
If you go that route, what's the point in leaving?

[Pann]

@Pann I'm assuming that the talk of a CU stopping us from striking trade agreements is because we won't really have anything to negotiate said agreements with since we don't control tariffs and such.

As I understand it we would not be able to operate a different tariff schedule on the goods we have agreed to be included in the CU but we would be able to alter our regulations. Take the famous US chlorine washed chicken for example we would have to charge the same tariffs on imported chicken as the EU but we would be able to import chlorine washed chicken if we wished to do so (which may be cheaper than EU sourced birds due to lower production costs).

I am happy to corrected if this is not the case.

[LeGin Tufnel]

You two.

FFS, get a room.

[Demolitia]

As I understand it we would not be able to operate a different tariff schedule on the goods we have agreed to be included in the CU but we would be able to alter our regulations. Take the famous US chlorine washed chicken for example we would have to charge the same tariffs on imported chicken as the EU but we would be able to import chlorine washed chicken if we wished to do so (which may be cheaper than EU sourced birds due to lower production costs).

I am happy to corrected if this is not the case.

Customs union is a bit misleading. You could join the current one, or we could make a new one.
If you join the current one, which covers everything, you would be unable to import chlorinated chicken. You join the EU's customs union and outside trade is the exclusive responsibility of the EU.

- - - Updated - - -

You two.

FFS, get a room.

Go back to watching cute baby sloths on netflix!

[Kronik85]

Precisely, the political declaration is just a non binding declaration of intent on what the future, permanent trade deal should be. It is very vague and open ended, intentionally.
The withdrawal agreement (the deal) in its current shape ensures that there is no border in ireland, that we keep trading on current terms, that you don't pay EU membership anymore and that you can start working on trade deals with other countries.
A customs union alone would no achieve that. While I'm pretty sure both sides would stick to the same standards, at least in the immediate future, we need some legal guarantees and mechanisms to ensure that consumers know what they are buying. There is not trusting each other on this. Right now we have common treaties, institutions, regulators and arbiters that decide which rules we all stick to. Once you leave, you will not be bound by them if you are just in a customs union, and we will not trust you. We will put in border checks to protect local businesses and consumers.
You can join the single market and pay a fee for the regulatory work the EU does, but you will have to accept the ECJ's authority if there are any disputes.

As I understand it we would not be able to operate a different tariff schedule on the goods we have agreed to be included in the CU but we would be able to alter our regulations. Take the famous US chlorine washed chicken for example we would have to charge the same tariffs on imported chicken as the EU but we would be able to import chlorine washed chicken if we wished to do so (which may be cheaper than EU sourced birds due to lower production costs).

I am happy to corrected if this is not the case.

I think this reply works for both discussions, I think it's entirely contingent on what kind of CU is negotiated.

If you go that route, what's the point in leaving?

Well that's pretty much the Remainer position. What is the point of leaving once you accept that the GFA is something worth protecting? It hamstrings any future trade deals and even if it wasn't a thing, what fantastic trading opportunities await the UK when it makes itself completely vulnerable to the 3 major players of the world stage (the EU, the USA and China). None of the 3 are likely to be offering anything better than what we have now and when you look at the USA wish list it crystallises just how weak an independent UK is in a trade negotiation.

[LeGin Tufnel]

Go back to watching cute baby sloths on netflix!

Baby sloths? Bloody two ton walruses throwing themselves off cliffs. Nothing cute going on. Hiding behind my mobile.

[Demolitia]

This article seems like a good read for what we are discussing here. Not being some kind of Trade Negotiator I'm happy to say I know relatively little on the minutiae of the matter.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.o...BoCRCYQAvD_BwE

As to what me and Demolitia are discussing I thought that regulatory alignment was a commitment in the Political Declaration but it's right to point out that this is completely non binding. My issue on the matter is that as to how things stand right now, there is no need to assume we will be diverging from EU standards in the near future.

@Pann I'm assuming that the talk of a CU stopping us from striking trade agreements is because we won't really have anything to negotiate said agreements with since we don't control tariffs and such.

What you are saying would be possible under a trade agreement, but that's the future relationship and it's a much more convoluted paper.
The scope of the withdrawal agreement is to keep trade and supply chains flowing freely for the time being, while not breaking apart Ireland and giving the UK the possibility to work on its new empire.
I think there is some serious misunderstanding as to what the withdrawal agreement really is.
It did however make crystal clear the fact that the Irish border is a nightmare that can't be easily solved, and I understand some people's concern that the UK could be indefinitely trapped in the withdrawal phase until a solution can be found.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

As I understand it we would not be able to operate a different tariff schedule on the goods we have agreed to be included in the CU but we would be able to alter our regulations. Take the famous US chlorine washed chicken for example we would have to charge the same tariffs on imported chicken as the EU but we would be able to import chlorine washed chicken if we wished to do so (which may be cheaper than EU sourced birds due to lower production costs).

I am happy to corrected if this is not the case.

As far as I know, if the UK/EU customs union did not include poultry goods, then the UK would be free to negotiate a deal with the US whereby they would allow the US to export chlorine-washed chicken to the UK at minimal or zero tariffs (assuming this does not impinge on MFN rules on either side of the deal). EU food safety regulations would forbid that produce from being sold on the European market. Without a trade agreement with the US which specifies the exclusiveness of that deal, however, the UK would have to apply that tariff rate to all countries wishing to export chicken to the UK (including the EU, which represents the member states as a single entity at the WTO).

I don't know if you can have a comprehensive customs union (i.e. zero tariffs on everything) without a FTA under WTO rules. I would assume not (otherwise other nations could also assume non-metered and non-tariffed access to the UK market under the principle of MFN).

The WTO has a short primer on international trade relationships, MFN and trade agreements on their website (see https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e..._e/fact2_e.htm )

Slightly OT - Succumb to the cuteness:

[Demolitia]

Well that's pretty much the Remainer position. What is the point of leaving once you accept that the GFA is something worth protecting? It hamstrings any future trade deals and even if it wasn't a thing, what fantastic trading opportunities await the UK when it makes itself completely vulnerable to the 3 major players of the world stage (the EU, the USA and China). None of the 3 are likely to be offering anything better than what we have now and when you look at the USA wish list it crystallises just how weak an independent UK is a trade negotiation.

Well, you could become a tax heaven with a nuclear arsenal, a spot and veto on the security council, that's pretty cool.

[Pann]

Customs union is a bit misleading. You could join the current one, or we could make a new one.
If you join the current one, which covers everything, you would be unable to import chlorinated chicken. You join the EU's customs union and outside trade is the exclusive responsibility of the EU.

Yeah, I did mean a new CU but I should have been clearer on that one.

[Demolitia]

Slightly OT - Succumb to the cuteness:

Awwww! They are equally cute and creepy.

[Kronik85]

Well, you could become a tax heaven with a nuclear arsenal, a spot and veto on the security council, that's pretty cool.

That depends on whether you believe a model that is mostly used by tiny nations with tiny populations will work for nation of 66 million people. Again, not an economist but happy to read anything you want to present that makes a good case for it.

The odd thing about the WA is that it does exactly what Brexiteers want yet they won't vote for it because of the backstop which is an insurance measure, not an explicit part of the deal but an emergency button nobody is meant to want to use. I guess all it does is imply the inherent bad faith of Brexiteers.