Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

OscillateWildly posted:

Do EU producers have to comply with UK law/regulation to sell in the UK?

Yes, because we're in the EU!

allhifi posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

Huge posted:

A 3,000+ mile long view that's over the horizon and obscured by clouds

That was my guess too, but didn't want to be accused of unfounded assumption with undertones of anti-yank!!

Touche', (lol) ;

"A 3,000+ mile long view that's over the horizon and obscured by clouds"

Right then. The dust hasn't settled. Time shall and does reveal perspective. With some more under your belt, you'll discover this. 

<snip>

Yes, agreed:  I totally accept that.

Huge,

Because we are in the EU:

And will they have to comply when we leave?

Cheers,

OW

OscillateWildly posted:

Huge,

Because we are in the EU:

And will they have to comply when we leave?

Cheers,

OW

That is entirely up to the UK - of course, if UK insists on it then it may reduce the potential for favourable bilateral  trade deals with non-EU countries (especially less developed ones)

allhifi posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

allhifi posted:

Indeed. You guys will be just fine. Political bantering  shall subside and the UK's strength in the global economy shall find its rightful place.

Unfortunately that may be a much lower placing than hitherto, and lower than most people like to think is the UK's 'rightful' place.

allhifi posted:

When the dust settles, I truly believe the nation will be a much better place -for all of the right reasons. 

I hope you are right, but very much fear you are wrong.

"Unfortunately that may be a much lower placing than hitherto (NO -EU may be playing the media/public perception card. For now)

If that is how it transpires, then good - but I fear that is a very big "may be", and in the short term the EU is absolutely certain to do all it can to ensure UK is worse off, and visibly so, to discourage any other member states from considering leaving.

 

and lower than most people like to think is the UK's 'rightful' place."(Rightful in terms of UK's undeniable historic contribution to modern society; higher-learning (academia), long standing alliance with leading nations and the understanding that the nations people are no pushovers -in fact are both proud and vocal. And bright.

 

That undoubtedly is how the UK sees itself. Unfortunately on its own, a small nation and no longer the centre of an empire, albeit with a few external dependent territories and the nominal centre of the commonwealth of nations, 'rightful place' in terms of trade is far more likely to be determined by the bigger players on the world market: e.g EU and US in particular, increasingly also the limes of China and India. 

When we leave the EU (actually before that point), then given the time constraints, initially the UK Government will have to transpose all EU relevant legislation into UK domestic law, simply to provide continuity.

After that we're free to abandon or replace anything,  In practice however, the vast majority of EU product legislation has been in the consumers' interest, and won't actually be substantially modified.  In the case of a hard Brexit, there will however be a problem with the issue of CE certification as we won't be able to do it locally and will have to rely on EU certification bodies.  We could of course go our own way and not be allowed to export to the majority of the developed world.

Innocent Bystander posted:

OscillateWildly posted:

Huge,

Because we are in the EU:

And will they have to comply when we leave?

Cheers,

OW

That is entirely up to the UK - of course, if UK insists on it then it may reduce the potential for favourable bilateral  trade deals with non-EU countries (especially less developed ones)

EU producers would have to comply if the UK chooses and those who are less developed would be encouraged to improve - as they are if they want to trade with the EU. Good news. The thread tends to mention only the UK having to meet other nations/bodies requirements.

Cheers,

OW

Huge posted:

When we leave the EU (actually before that point), then given the time constraints, initially the UK Government will have to transpose all EU relevant legislation into UK domestic law, simply to provide continuity.

After that we're free to abandon or replace anything,  In practice however, the vast majority of EU product legislation has been in the consumers' interest, and won't actually be substantially modified.  In the case of a hard Brexit, there will however be a problem with the issue of CE certification as we won't be able to do it locally and will have to rely on EU certification bodies.  We could of course go our own way and not be allowed to export to the majority of the developed world.

Indeed, UK Gov't agencies presently have large teams of people engaged in doing what is necessary to ensure existing laws effectively continue seemlessly when Brexit happens.

And whilst UK can indeed do its own thing if completely divorced, as I indicated in an earlier post the reality is that to trade with the EU anything that might impinge, directly or indirectly,  on goods UK might want to export will almost certainly have to continue, including following future EU amendments and relevant new legislation. And in some areas Gov't departments are predicting a greater level of compliance will be necessary than hitherto -  DEFRA  I know is already assessing the extra demand in terms of environmental compliance.

As Huge says, a lot of legislation is in the consumer's interest, and indeed there are often very similar requirements in other developed countries. And people often forget that a fair bit of EU law was modelled on British law. And whilst I imagine almost everyone can think of a few EU laws that seem over-the-top, there is no certainty that will cease to be the case with purely British laws - though of course with a British slant one might expect the incidence to be less.

OscillateWildly posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

OscillateWildly posted:

Huge,

Because we are in the EU:

And will they have to comply when we leave?

Cheers,

OW

That is entirely up to the UK - of course, if UK insists on it then it may reduce the potential for favourable bilateral  trade deals with non-EU countries (especially less developed ones)

EU producers would have to comply if the UK chooses and those who are less developed would be encouraged to improve - as they are if they want to trade with the EU. Good news. The thread tends to mention only the UK having to meet other nations/bodies requirements.

Cheers,

OW

Because that is where UK's cost will be, and absence of the freeing up of legislation that some Brexitiers promised during last year's campaign. The 'good news' of your post is no different from now so is not a function of Brexit. (Except if UK chooses to accept lower srandards relating to imports, which it may do to encourage trade with new partners - but acceptance of lower standards may not be beneficial to consumers, or to trade competitiveness.)

OscillateWildly posted:

EU producers would have to comply if the UK chooses and those who are less developed would be encouraged to improve - as they are if they want to trade with the EU. Good news. The thread tends to mention only the UK having to meet other nations/bodies requirements.

But surely the point is that the more UK legislation and compliance varies from the EU; the more UK businesses are going to have to do to be able to sell into Europe (and yes the converse applies too).  This is the whole fallacy of Brexit, the idea of "regaining" control of the UKs legislation; when a lot of the legislation will still be "following Brussel's laws" because of the need for trade but instead of having 1/28th input (in reality more than that) over the laws, we will be having to comply with laws where there is zero input.  Unless you are no longer doing business with Europe, you have to comply with their requirements.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Because that is where UK's cost will be, and absence of the freeing up of legislation that some Brexitiers promised during last year's campaign. The 'good news' of your post is no different from now so is not a function of Brexit. (Except if UK chooses to accept lower srandards relating to imports, which it may do to encourage trade with new partners - but acceptance of lower standards may not be beneficial to consumers, or to trade competitiveness.)

Acceptance of a lower standard for imports and home grown products also adds to bureaucracy of selling to EU.  Lets take the example of chlorine washed chicken that was in the news a while back - currently it is banned in the EU and therefore UK chicken farmers can't use the process.  US farmers are not banned from using the process and as part of UK / US trade negotiations there may be pressure to accept said chicken produce.

So then either the UK will drop standards for UK farmers, or UK farmers will be held to a higher standard (and therefore have higher costs) than the imports.  But you say ... the UK farmers are currently selling to the EU.  Well yes, that market might still exist for them and even with higher costs they may be able to compete there ... but there will inevitably be increased bureaucracy in proving that the chicken being sold is "good" UK chicken, not imported and sold on "bad" US chicken.

Given how much there is to think about this one small area ... think of all the complexity and bureaucracy involved in negotiating to save all the economy.

Yes, but we can then choose to follow EU legislation (because there isn't another viable choice) rather than having to (because we're compelled to by EU legislation).

See how that's completely different?

Huge posted:

Yes, but we can then choose to follow EU legislation (because there isn't another viable choice) rather than having to (because we're compelled to by EU legislation).

See how that's completely different?

You mean we're going to be blackmailed into following EU legislation (because otherwise you don't get to do business with us) rather than willingly participating in the creation of EU legislation which can be shaped and moulded at least partly for the benefit of the UK?

No blackmail needed, in any market with export potential we'll make the choice to generate UK legislation that precisely follows most of EU business regulations simply because there's no other viable choice, but it'll then be our "choice" to follow the regulations which, in practice, we still have to follow.

(My post above was facetious!)

Innocent Bystander posted:

OscillateWildly posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

OscillateWildly posted:

Huge,

Because we are in the EU:

And will they have to comply when we leave?

Cheers,

OW

That is entirely up to the UK - of course, if UK insists on it then it may reduce the potential for favourable bilateral  trade deals with non-EU countries (especially less developed ones)

EU producers would have to comply if the UK chooses and those who are less developed would be encouraged to improve - as they are if they want to trade with the EU. Good news. The thread tends to mention only the UK having to meet other nations/bodies requirements.

Cheers,

OW

Because that is where UK's cost will be, and absence of the freeing up of legislation that some Brexitiers promised during last year's campaign. The 'good news' of your post is no different from now so is not a function of Brexit. (Except if UK chooses to accept lower srandards relating to imports, which it may do to encourage trade with new partners - but acceptance of lower standards may not be beneficial to consumers, or to trade competitiveness.)

It is meant for balance. If the UK introduces an additional safety measure, the EU producers will have to meet it or not sell - the idea that it is a one way street is nonsense.

Good news - that it will still be the case. Why does it have to be a function of Brexit?

Cheers,

OW

Huge posted:

Yes, but we can then choose to follow EU legislation (because there isn't another viable choice) rather than having to (because we're compelled to by EU legislation).

See how that's completely different?

Yes indeed, Brexit clearly serves us well, giving us freedom  to choose to comply with EU legislation (and make it all ourselves).

On the subject of legislation, at present EU legislation is translated officially into all member states' languages, of course including English. I did think it would stay that way because of Republic of Ireland - however I have heard a suggestion that they may change to Gaelic instead (of course not deliberately to spite UK), so it won't be anywhere near as simple to copy and implement whatever is wanted/needed.

Innocent Bystander posted:

On the subject of legislation, at present EU legislation is translated officially into all member states' languages, of course including English. I did think it would stay that way because of Republic of Ireland - however I have heard a suggestion that they may change to Gaelic instead (of course not deliberately to spite UK), so it won't be anywhere near as simple to copy and implement whatever is wanted/needed.

You see... another example of how the EU are just so unreasonable.  Surely after 40 years they should have standardised on the universal language and just published everything in English... which everyone should understand.  It’s pitiful how all these nations hang on to their own language for anything more than ceremonial reasons!

OscillateWildly posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

OscillateWildly posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

OscillateWildly posted:

Huge,

Because we are in the EU:

And will they have to comply when we leave?

Cheers,

OW

That is entirely up to the UK - of course, if UK insists on it then it may reduce the potential for favourable bilateral  trade deals with non-EU countries (especially less developed ones)

EU producers would have to comply if the UK chooses and those who are less developed would be encouraged to improve - as they are if they want to trade with the EU. Good news. The thread tends to mention only the UK having to meet other nations/bodies requirements.

Cheers,

OW

Because that is where UK's cost will be, and absence of the freeing up of legislation that some Brexitiers promised during last year's campaign. The 'good news' of your post is no different from now so is not a function of Brexit. (Except if UK chooses to accept lower srandards relating to imports, which it may do to encourage trade with new partners - but acceptance of lower standards may not be beneficial to consumers, or to trade competitiveness.)

It is meant for balance. If the UK introduces an additional safety measure, the EU producers will have to meet it or not sell - the idea that it is a one way street is nonsense.

Good news - that it will still be the case. Why does it have to be a function of Brexit?

Cheers,

OW

I wasn't suggesting it had ro be, just observing, given that the subject is Brexit.

Eloise posted:

OscillateWildly posted:

EU producers would have to comply if the UK chooses and those who are less developed would be encouraged to improve - as they are if they want to trade with the EU. Good news. The thread tends to mention only the UK having to meet other nations/bodies requirements.

But surely the point is that the more UK legislation and compliance varies from the EU; the more UK businesses are going to have to do to be able to sell into Europe (and yes the converse applies too).  This is the whole fallacy of Brexit, the idea of "regaining" control of the UKs legislation; when a lot of the legislation will still be "following Brussel's laws" because of the need for trade but instead of having 1/28th input (in reality more than that) over the laws, we will be having to comply with laws where there is zero input.  Unless you are no longer doing business with Europe, you have to comply with their requirements.

More work for both? Yes. Businesses who deal with the rest of the world are capable of handling such situations. "When a lot of the legislation...", you at least agree not all. Does it count when UK and EU manufacturers meet the requirements of a non-EU country, or does it only apply when the UK complies with EU regulations? Is trade the only area of legislation? There are many reasons why people voted Leave. On the last sentence, you earlier agree the converse applies.

Back Monday, good weekend.

Cheers,

OW

Huge posted:

Yes, but we can then choose to follow EU legislation (because there isn't another viable choice) rather than having to (because we're compelled to by EU legislation).

See how that's completely different?

We can choose to have higher standards, and the EU producers can choose to comply or sell elsewhere.

Back Monday, good weekend.

As I indicated previously, for importing into the EU, as well as the goods complying with all EU requirements, the UK will have to prove that iall other legislation the absence of which  might give us an unfair trading advantage will have to be demonstrably in place and complied with. At least for any home-grown food products that undoubtedly will mean all or virtually environmental legislation. The same would apply to anything that impinges on production costs of other manufactured goods. And that need to be demonstrable exceeds the more relaxed approach of just having to have legislation in place, even where there is a need to give periodic returns to Brussels (which is not always followed at present, or not fully).

OscillateWildly posted:

Huge posted:

Yes, but we can then choose to follow EU legislation (because there isn't another viable choice) rather than having to (because we're compelled to by EU legislation).

See how that's completely different?

We can choose to have higher standards, and the EU producers can choose to comply or sell elsewhere.

We can do that and price ourselves out of the international markets; the EU countries then will choose to sell elsewhere - fortress Britain just isn't that important to Europe.  When that happens we'll either have to fall in line or see our economy stagnate.

(Or are you suggesting that our own internal economy is strong enough on our own with little or no international trade.)

What I really don't understand about those in the remain camp (I'm not one of them) is this.

In effect, you were given your second referendum on Brexit just a few months ago.  In the General Election, one party stood unambiguously on a pro-EU stop Brexit ticket.  Admittedly it's not a very exciting party and was poorly led at the time; but on the other hand it's not an extremist party, wasn't likely to start wars, ruin the economy or create mass poverty etc,  it's well established, was in government only  a few years ago and  it's a party you could  have swallowed your pride and voted for without too much embarrassment, given the bigger picture as you see it.  But by and large  you didn't.

So, If you really think Brexit  is the most important issue facing the UK ( I agree with you) and you think so with the same passion that you reserve for criticising leave voters on internet forums, why didn't you simply put all other considerations aside and vote Lib Dem?  Maybe you did, but it's clear that when given the choice of voting for a party that, if in power, would have  have stopped Brexit dead in its tracks, most remainers  chose not to ( 48% voted  remain, 7.4% voted LD) .   In practical terms  that makes most Remainers de facto  Brexiteers  from my perspective....

Realistically, at the last general election, it was always going to be a race between between Labour and the Tories, as it's always been, neither of which supported a second referendum.

Brexiteers need to get real.

Norton posted:

What I really don't understand about those in the remain camp (I'm not one of them) is this...

You forget one important point... the referendum has already been won/lost.  The General Election was never going to change that.  What the choice was was between a “Brexit at any cost” approach and a more pragmatic “we are Brexiting but let’s not alienate everyone in the process and we might get the best deal possible”.

I can only speak for myself, but the General Election was about much more than just Brexit.  For many (though again speaking for myself) people there are wider issues than just Brexit for the country, many issues which in or out of Europe need to be tackled if the country is going to prosper (to use certain rehtoric) for the many not just the few.

Brexit is a crisis for the country (in my opinion and I try to respect other point of view) and staying within the EU would have been my preference, but the process of Brexit can take the crisis and minimise it, or it can take the crisis and turn it into disaster - sadly for me I feel the latter is the route that is being taken.

As I have oft repeated, I can’t see many is any positives coming out of Brexit, but that doesn’t mean I want the U.K. to turn into a disaster as a result of Brexit.  I want the best possible relationship with the EU to continue working for a safer, fairer world and to continue the close relationship for trade and industry which has benefitted this country for the last 40 years.