Welcome back to the EU!

[Josey Wales]

Hi Squaredy

I did indeed see the first post with the screenshot by Martin Howe KC, barrister specializing in law and litigation, and sometime Spectator contributor, yet that does not make that the definitive, or final, word upon the subject. Other interpretations are just as valid, and maybe more nuanced. Many experts in their field write upon this subject, not just the one you have quoted. I read others, just as qualified as Martin Howe, if not more so, and come to different conclusions, hence why i replied to it in a more positive light, but hey, this is a discussion. It would be boring if we all agreed with each other. Am i saying i am right? No, just offering a different opinion, a different perspective.

Where i agree with Martin Howe is that no actual legal texts have been prepared. Discussions are ongoing. So nothing of course would be signed. Barely the revelation of the century. That he sees this as a road leading back to the Single Market, and that we may be subject to a whole array of 'foreign laws' is a mental leap of gymnastic proportions.

Where i gather you are unhappy is in the oversight of the ECJ in this 'reset'. As Howe puts it, this would be 'dynamically' applied, rather than 'directly' applied. In practice, this means ECJ jurisdiction would be kept at arms length, but that yes, if the dispute was not settled through independent arbitration, the ECJ remains the ultimate authority. At this point, i would remind you that we already have 'direct' ECJ jurisdiction, as negotiated by the last Conservative government, in the Windsor Framework (that partially replaced the Northern Ireland Protocol) as NI remains within the single Market for goods. Why the sudden outrage now? We already have it, as last time i looked Northern Ireland was part of the UK.

We are having to follow 'their' rules anyway for UK firms to export into our largest and nearest market, but where is the outrage that we have still not reciprocated full customs controls on EU imports, rather, just wave them through? The current system favors EU importers and disadvantages UK exporters. I find it amazing that so few people comment upon how our exporters are drowning in red tape yet EU importers have none of it. This reset would balance the scales a bit and help UK exports.

Because of this, most big business in the UK broadly welcomes this alignment to SPS standards. Regulatory alignment, as that is all it is, is better for business, our economy, and most importantly in this case, our food security. Dodgy horse meat from the EU waved through customs because we are still not enforcing full customs checks, so everyone knows this is the place to send it? No thanks. 

I get it, we left the EU so we could make our own regulations, but the bigger markets regulatory standards will always be the benchmark business aligns with as it is more profitable. Look at the hullabaloo around tethered bottle caps. UK bottled drinks manufacturers had a choice. Align to the standards of the larger market, the EU, or have two production lines, one for the EU, and one for the UK market, so we would not have to align with their standards. The manufacturers willingly chose to produce to the standards of the larger market. The EU. Can you blame them?

Or look at the UKCA mark on so much of the equipment we all use in our day to day jobs. A separate, UK conformity testing process, no different to the CE conformity testing process, that was going to be phased into legislation so manufacturers had no choice. Many smaller businesses could not afford to do two testing processes, but obviously the big boys could afford it, and started to test kit against the two standards. Do you think that Stihl or Husqvarna, for example, absorbed the cost for this dual testing process for both CE (their larger market) and for UKCA ( a smaller market)? Or do you think this added cost was passed on to those customers in the country asking for this second testing process? We all paid for it.

Divergence from EU standards is merely window dressing. No wonder the last Conservative government quietly buried the UKCA mark.

Look, i doubt we will agree, (though i respect that when you do so with others it is with clarity and politeness) but at some point, as illustrated by tethered bottle caps and the UKCA mark, gravity matters, and business is largely welcoming alignment. This is in no way being back in the EU. If you had titled your thread 'Welcome to Switzerland', i feel that would have been more accurate. Another country not in the EU, constantly disagreeing with the EU, but constantly having to negotiate for access to their markets. That is all this is in my view. 

 

 

 

[Mark Bolam]

I understood most of that.

 

Where do we stand on animal welfare standards?

i.e. we lead the world (UK) but the EU lets it’s other countries treat their own ‘rules’ like very rough guidance.

 

The EU are a cancer.

 

Brexit has been a total shambles, and we are worse off for sure, but being tethered to those self-serving, bureaucratically crazy hypocritical twats what was made 52% vote to get out of their evil grasp.

[Josey Wales]

Hi Mark Bolam

I am in complete agreement with you as regards our animal welfare standards in comparison to some countries within the EU. As far as the current negotiations are concerned, my understanding so far is that the Common Veterinary Area (CVA) agreement will, among other things, mean the UK's ban on live animal exports will remain in place. Further, from what i have read so far, the deal also empowers the UK to negotiate opt outs in future discussions so that our, as you correctly say, superior animal welfare proposals are not put at risk. 

The devil is in the detail, which is why i replied to Squaredy's post originally. Nothing is signed yet. You never know, i might end up slighting the bastards alongside the rest of you, and eating humble pie. Lets see.

I respect your view of the EU, and believe me, i am not someone who subscribes to the view of it being a Utopian ideal. There is a lot i do not like, but ironically they were often a good brake upon the worst excesses of our own governments, red or blue. It is illuminating to see what EU laws our past governments did say 'no' to, and the majority were concerning workers rights and environmental protection. 

I try not to be so politically dogmatic that i refuse to see where one party can do both good and utter shite at the same time. Currently, i agree with Labour trying to improve upon the disastrous Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) that Johnson and Frost agreed with the EU in their rush to 'Get Brexit done!'' It gave the EU so much, they are happy with it and unwilling to dramatically change it. It works better for them, to our detriment. It needs to be changed. Labour are trying that.

On the other hand, i hate Labour for the current planning and infrastructure bill currently going through parliament. Out of the EU, and the protection their legislation gave some of our designated wildlife sites, Labour are planning to utilize this loophole to bulldoze wildlife rich sites for development. Lodge Hill, in Kent, a fantastic Nightingale habitat on former MOD land in your county, and where i am from originally, is under threat again. FFS! Twats, all of them!

Like the EU, or hate it, Labour or Tory, leaver or remainer, it truly makes no difference now, but Brexit has caused more problems than it could ever solve. It's done. We left the EU. We are not going back. Time to move on.

This is our future, which is why i said we need to address it, not glower across the channel and never speak to our most important trading partner ever again, and why i said in my last post that we are more similar in our current situation to Switzerland, with an economy not too different to ours, also not in the EU, and that perhaps we need to learn from the never ending discussions they have with the EU and see our future in that. Not great, no, but that is where we are. 

 

[Mark Bolam]

Good post Josey.