7 ms·

That's a very Europe centric view, though. It essentially makes compliance to EU law optional for companies operating in the UK. That's a huge advantage. Choos

That's a very Europe centric view, though. It essentially makes compliance to EU law optional for companies operating in the UK. That's a huge advantage. Choose to trade on EU terms with the single market, or choose to trade on other terms with different international targets. That may not be precisely what you want, but it's not a bad deal for the UK, it's just a different set of terms. Plus, the EU will do better without us. We've always just complained and delayed their desire for further deep integration between countries. To paraphrase Boris' quote of 'Having a successful, independent UK over the channel isn't a bad thing for the EU', well neither is it bad for the UK to have an independent EU to trade with, where they can crack on with what they want to do without us disrupting it. Edit: people seem to be taking this as me 'selling' brexit. Just wanted to discuss the situation, at least it kicked off a chat!

sleavey 6y ago
> It essentially makes compliance to EU law optional for companies operating in the UK. That's a huge advantage. Choose to trade on EU terms with the single market, or choose to trade on other terms with international targets. When the UK was in the EU, it was never a requirement for goods sold to non-EU countries to meet EU regulations. On that front, nothing has changed: selling to EU, you need to meet EU laws; selling elsewhere you need to meet theirs.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  Yes - but now we can trade with those countries on our terms, not an aggregated decision on how we can trade set by EU legislation. Before we wouldn't need to meet single market standard to trade with those countries, but the overall terms would depend on EU trade deals or standard rules. This is why leaving the customs union is key to any reasonable Brexit deal. I'm not even trying to argue that Brexit is good necessarily, but more rationalizing why the deal always had to be what it is. Anything else other than staying in the EU isn't a beneficial option for the UK - unless joining EFTA, or similar.
  - sleavey 6y ago
    > Yes - but now we can trade with those countries on our terms, not an aggregated decision on how we can trade set by EU legislation. No, we trade with those countries on the terms of our trade agreements with those countries, which will more or less be the higher of each partners' standards on each involved aspect (unless there is no trade agreement at all, then it's WTO terms which are the same the EU would get). The only realistic difference to trade policy being out of the EU is that we can lower our standards with respect to the EU when negotiating deals with third countries. The EU already had some of the highest standards in the world for workers rights, food safety and animal welfare and safety, and I don't think we'll be selflessly rising above those any time soon.
    - hardlianotion 6y ago
      I think parent means that those terms would be negotiated by UK with only UK interests at heart, and not submerged in other countries interests.
      - breakfastduck 6y ago
        Yep, preceiely what I was getting at. Our deals with other countries now can, at least, be specialized deals in our own trading interest.
        CraigJPerry 6y ago
        What does that mean in practice? I get that you can save some pages in a trade agreement that would otherwise be dedicated to protecting Spanish oranges (insert any other good produced in EU but not in Britain here) but those pages were never of consequence to Britain anyway.
    - krona 6y ago
      > and I don't think we'll be selflessly rising above those any time soon. The UK has expressed continued interest in raising animal standards beyond those enforced by the EU - the PM even mentioned it in his speech as an example where the UK will go further in regulation.
- csdigi 6y ago
  Importantly though the UK does not need to apply those rules and standards to domestic trade (which is over 90% of it).
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    Yeah, plenty of UK businesses whose only customers are UK residents may see benefit. Only time will tell, depends hugely on how the UK decides to differ in it's regulations.
    - rvba 6y ago
      Brits will soom be able to eat imported chlorinated chicken!
      - OJFord 6y ago
        The only reason to do that is price, which importing (from the USA, presumably) would surely negate. When chlorinated chicken has been brought up as a debate point it's as an example of a standard that might slip, that cheaper UK chicken might be chlorinated for a UK market. I doubt it would be popular, personally.
    - CraigJPerry 6y ago
      I’ve never been able to get a straight answer to the obvious question - which rules? I always wanted a good solid answer to that so i could ask what stopped us changing them from within the EU but i never got past the first hurdle.
      - pteraspidomorph 6y ago
        Usually means labels, safety, privacy, worker rights, quotas, etc. The EU has a vast amount of regulations that protect consummers but make business harder/more expensive. The UK should retain most of those independently, will probably fudge some of them.
      - aembleton 6y ago
- alexchamberlain 6y ago
  Is that true? When the UK was part of the EU, goods manufactured in the UK would have to comply with UK laws, which would have to be equivalent to or stronger than the EU laws.
  - dijit 6y ago
    Only if they were being sold in the UK, because the UK had trading standards which complied with EU trading standards. So if you’re lowering the bar, you’re doing it for the UK primarily. But our trading standards were higher then the EU base ones. So, not sure what we gain. But yes, if you produce goods not destined for the UK market, it was completely fine for you not to meet EU standards.
    - breakfastduck 6y ago
      You're missing the point. It's not just the standards with internationals, its the terms of trade. That's what you win back. You can directly negotiate and agree terms with any other country freely without consulting the EU, where before the terms were set by the EU.
      - randomsearch 6y ago
        Yes. And the EU negotiated with other countries on our behalf - with unbelievable bargaining power as the world’s premier trading block. Now we’re a country of 70 million in a world of 7 billion trying to negotiate within a world dominated by bigger and more powerful nations and trading blocks. We went from a big player in the biggest block to a medium player all alone.
        breakfastduck 6y ago
        True. But as a huge player, the EU also had to make more generic deals, for lack of a better term. It had to be beneficial for all EU countries. As a smaller player, the UK can be more specialized and agile in its trade deals. Is that better than being in the EU? Only time will tell.
Someone 6y ago
“It essentially makes compliance to EU law optional for companies operating in the UK.” As long as they do not export to the EU or do not sell half-products to firms that export to the EU. Most exports from UK companies go to the EU, and will have to comply with EU regulations. For those firms also exporting to non-EU countries, chances are it won’t be worth the hassle to make both EU-compliant and non-compliant products (as an example, look how the RoHS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Substances_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Subst...) drove the world to ban lead in soldering)
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  Playing devils advocate it's very easy for a company to set up two shells or 'partner' organizations where the products are targeted to different markets.
  - Someone 6y ago
    Easy (you don’t even need multiple companies), but it would double your overhead and means you’ll have to keep more supplies (if you run out of EU-regulation foobars, you can’t grab a few non-EU-regulation ones) or order them in smaller quantities (⇒ quite possibly at higher prices), have larger stores of stuff to be sold, etc. That wasn’t even worth it for global electronics companies to keep producing non-RoHS-compliant electronics, and quite a few of them produce at scales that few others do.
  - rndmio 6y ago
    It's about production lines, the cost to manufacture the same thing to different standards is more costly (generally) than just producing one thing to the highest standard and selling it to both markets.
    - breakfastduck 6y ago
      Get that, but means companies can operate different 'arms' for different operations. Products can be totally different, they don't have to be 'variants' of the same item.
ljm 6y ago
Putting the self-sacrificial, better without us bullshit aside (the sheer arrogance of which in itself is nonsense because the UK had a huge influence in making the EU what is today), the view is europe centric because we are geologically and historically European, and the UK has just given away the incredible influence it had in the world's largest trading bloc, the one that has brought about the longest period of peace within the continent. Whatever you and others might believe, don't try and spin Brexit as an act of nobility designed to protect the EU from the all-powerful, magnanimous British empire of yore. This agreement, and the past four years, has been an incredible loss and have set the UK back by a good 40 years. We have been in the throes of populism for half a decade and are only digging deeper into it.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  I'm not trying to explain my beliefs or spin anything, I'm just highlighting what are clearly the aims of the deal.
  - peteretep 6y ago
    Thanks for doing this. You’re taking the time to write thoughtful explanatory answers and people are taking out their understandable bitterness on you
  - ljm 6y ago
    The aim of the deal was to get something better than what was previously had, at any cost. Any. While I can appreciate an attempt at objective analysis of the deal, that's not what has been discussed so far. And, in all honesty, the occasion itself is momentous enough that it's a dis-service to discount any emotions around the affair. This isn't a cause for celebration for a calculable majority of the UK, after all.
Brakenshire 6y ago
I think the "not a bad deal, just a different set of terms" is key. This isn't or shouldn't be about trying to get one over on the other side, the UK and the EU are not in a zero sum game, clearly levels of trade integration require harmonization of regulation, some countries are going to be happy with that in particular areas, some aren't, and to decline to integrate has economic consequences within that local context. And similarly just because the UK doesn't want to be part of the EU political union, that's not some calculated insult, it's just something we aren't happy to do. Not every partner of the EU needs to be part of the EU.
Zenst 6y ago
> We've always just complained and delayed their desire for further deep integration between countries. Exactly that - we have as a country, never really embraced the whole EU direction and dare say that short stretch of water between Mainland Europe and the UK - has historically set a different cultural mindset. Equally the whole WW1+2 experiences would of also had some rippling legacy impact I dare say. However you look at it, if you have a disruptive employee and they want to leave, wish them the best and both will be better of. But certainly be interesting what reforms the EU will do in the comming years, certainly that whole area of reform was conceded by many including Donald Tusk right after the 2016 vote and as last stood, was being driven by Macron - though only once the UK has left. So be interesting how that progresses and how that manifests.
noxvilleza 6y ago
All over this thread you seem to mention potential trade benefits for the UK based on being separate from the EU. Can you name some benefits (perhaps let's say 3) that you expect will be negotiated more favourably for the UK within a year that the UK was unable to get as part of the EU. Also ... being part of a a trade bloc always has benefits and positives, but the two key negatives touted as 'deal-breakers' in the Brexit negotiations have been related to (1) sovereignty and (2) concessions. A few weeks ago Peter Verovšek wrote a short but pretty good article on effectively the illusion of sovereignty (https://www.socialeurope.eu/brexit-and-the-misunderstanding-of-sovereignty https://www.socialeurope.eu/brexit-and-the-misunderstanding-...) for the UK, and in terms of concessions it seems that a small nation with limited resources hardly makes a net loss by being part of a larger trade bloc: access to a huge market while exposing a small market of your own.

sleavey 6y ago

> It essentially makes compliance to EU law optional for companies operating in the UK. That's a huge advantage. Choose to trade on EU terms with the single market, or choose to trade on other terms with international targets. When the UK was in the EU, it was never a requirement for goods sold to non-EU countries to meet EU regulations. On that front, nothing has changed: selling to EU, you need to meet EU laws; selling elsewhere you need to meet theirs.

breakfastduck 6y ago
Yes - but now we can trade with those countries on our terms, not an aggregated decision on how we can trade set by EU legislation. Before we wouldn't need to meet single market standard to trade with those countries, but the overall terms would depend on EU trade deals or standard rules. This is why leaving the customs union is key to any reasonable Brexit deal. I'm not even trying to argue that Brexit is good necessarily, but more rationalizing why the deal always had to be what it is. Anything else other than staying in the EU isn't a beneficial option for the UK - unless joining EFTA, or similar.
- sleavey 6y ago
  > Yes - but now we can trade with those countries on our terms, not an aggregated decision on how we can trade set by EU legislation. No, we trade with those countries on the terms of our trade agreements with those countries, which will more or less be the higher of each partners' standards on each involved aspect (unless there is no trade agreement at all, then it's WTO terms which are the same the EU would get). The only realistic difference to trade policy being out of the EU is that we can lower our standards with respect to the EU when negotiating deals with third countries. The EU already had some of the highest standards in the world for workers rights, food safety and animal welfare and safety, and I don't think we'll be selflessly rising above those any time soon.
  - hardlianotion 6y ago
    I think parent means that those terms would be negotiated by UK with only UK interests at heart, and not submerged in other countries interests.
    - breakfastduck 6y ago
      Yep, preceiely what I was getting at. Our deals with other countries now can, at least, be specialized deals in our own trading interest.
      - CraigJPerry 6y ago
        What does that mean in practice? I get that you can save some pages in a trade agreement that would otherwise be dedicated to protecting Spanish oranges (insert any other good produced in EU but not in Britain here) but those pages were never of consequence to Britain anyway.
  - krona 6y ago
    > and I don't think we'll be selflessly rising above those any time soon. The UK has expressed continued interest in raising animal standards beyond those enforced by the EU - the PM even mentioned it in his speech as an example where the UK will go further in regulation.
csdigi 6y ago
Importantly though the UK does not need to apply those rules and standards to domestic trade (which is over 90% of it).
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  Yeah, plenty of UK businesses whose only customers are UK residents may see benefit. Only time will tell, depends hugely on how the UK decides to differ in it's regulations.
  - rvba 6y ago
    Brits will soom be able to eat imported chlorinated chicken!
    - OJFord 6y ago
      The only reason to do that is price, which importing (from the USA, presumably) would surely negate. When chlorinated chicken has been brought up as a debate point it's as an example of a standard that might slip, that cheaper UK chicken might be chlorinated for a UK market. I doubt it would be popular, personally.
  - CraigJPerry 6y ago
    I’ve never been able to get a straight answer to the obvious question - which rules? I always wanted a good solid answer to that so i could ask what stopped us changing them from within the EU but i never got past the first hurdle.
    - pteraspidomorph 6y ago
      Usually means labels, safety, privacy, worker rights, quotas, etc. The EU has a vast amount of regulations that protect consummers but make business harder/more expensive. The UK should retain most of those independently, will probably fudge some of them.
    - aembleton 6y ago
alexchamberlain 6y ago
Is that true? When the UK was part of the EU, goods manufactured in the UK would have to comply with UK laws, which would have to be equivalent to or stronger than the EU laws.
- dijit 6y ago
  Only if they were being sold in the UK, because the UK had trading standards which complied with EU trading standards. So if you’re lowering the bar, you’re doing it for the UK primarily. But our trading standards were higher then the EU base ones. So, not sure what we gain. But yes, if you produce goods not destined for the UK market, it was completely fine for you not to meet EU standards.
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    You're missing the point. It's not just the standards with internationals, its the terms of trade. That's what you win back. You can directly negotiate and agree terms with any other country freely without consulting the EU, where before the terms were set by the EU.
    - randomsearch 6y ago
      Yes. And the EU negotiated with other countries on our behalf - with unbelievable bargaining power as the world’s premier trading block. Now we’re a country of 70 million in a world of 7 billion trying to negotiate within a world dominated by bigger and more powerful nations and trading blocks. We went from a big player in the biggest block to a medium player all alone.
      - breakfastduck 6y ago
        True. But as a huge player, the EU also had to make more generic deals, for lack of a better term. It had to be beneficial for all EU countries. As a smaller player, the UK can be more specialized and agile in its trade deals. Is that better than being in the EU? Only time will tell.

Someone 6y ago

“It essentially makes compliance to EU law optional for companies operating in the UK.” As long as they do not export to the EU or do not sell half-products to firms that export to the EU. Most exports from UK companies go to the EU, and will have to comply with EU regulations. For those firms also exporting to non-EU countries, chances are it won’t be worth the hassle to make both EU-compliant and non-compliant products (as an example, look how the RoHS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Substances_Directive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Subst...) drove the world to ban lead in soldering)

breakfastduck 6y ago
Playing devils advocate it's very easy for a company to set up two shells or 'partner' organizations where the products are targeted to different markets.
- Someone 6y ago
  Easy (you don’t even need multiple companies), but it would double your overhead and means you’ll have to keep more supplies (if you run out of EU-regulation foobars, you can’t grab a few non-EU-regulation ones) or order them in smaller quantities (⇒ quite possibly at higher prices), have larger stores of stuff to be sold, etc. That wasn’t even worth it for global electronics companies to keep producing non-RoHS-compliant electronics, and quite a few of them produce at scales that few others do.
- rndmio 6y ago
  It's about production lines, the cost to manufacture the same thing to different standards is more costly (generally) than just producing one thing to the highest standard and selling it to both markets.
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    Get that, but means companies can operate different 'arms' for different operations. Products can be totally different, they don't have to be 'variants' of the same item.

ljm 6y ago

Putting the self-sacrificial, better without us bullshit aside (the sheer arrogance of which in itself is nonsense because the UK had a huge influence in making the EU what is today), the view is europe centric because we are geologically and historically European, and the UK has just given away the incredible influence it had in the world's largest trading bloc, the one that has brought about the longest period of peace within the continent. Whatever you and others might believe, don't try and spin Brexit as an act of nobility designed to protect the EU from the all-powerful, magnanimous British empire of yore. This agreement, and the past four years, has been an incredible loss and have set the UK back by a good 40 years. We have been in the throes of populism for half a decade and are only digging deeper into it.

breakfastduck 6y ago
I'm not trying to explain my beliefs or spin anything, I'm just highlighting what are clearly the aims of the deal.
- peteretep 6y ago
  Thanks for doing this. You’re taking the time to write thoughtful explanatory answers and people are taking out their understandable bitterness on you
- ljm 6y ago
  The aim of the deal was to get something better than what was previously had, at any cost. Any. While I can appreciate an attempt at objective analysis of the deal, that's not what has been discussed so far. And, in all honesty, the occasion itself is momentous enough that it's a dis-service to discount any emotions around the affair. This isn't a cause for celebration for a calculable majority of the UK, after all.

Brakenshire 6y ago

I think the "not a bad deal, just a different set of terms" is key. This isn't or shouldn't be about trying to get one over on the other side, the UK and the EU are not in a zero sum game, clearly levels of trade integration require harmonization of regulation, some countries are going to be happy with that in particular areas, some aren't, and to decline to integrate has economic consequences within that local context. And similarly just because the UK doesn't want to be part of the EU political union, that's not some calculated insult, it's just something we aren't happy to do. Not every partner of the EU needs to be part of the EU.

Zenst 6y ago

> We've always just complained and delayed their desire for further deep integration between countries. Exactly that - we have as a country, never really embraced the whole EU direction and dare say that short stretch of water between Mainland Europe and the UK - has historically set a different cultural mindset. Equally the whole WW1+2 experiences would of also had some rippling legacy impact I dare say. However you look at it, if you have a disruptive employee and they want to leave, wish them the best and both will be better of. But certainly be interesting what reforms the EU will do in the comming years, certainly that whole area of reform was conceded by many including Donald Tusk right after the 2016 vote and as last stood, was being driven by Macron - though only once the UK has left. So be interesting how that progresses and how that manifests.

noxvilleza 6y ago

All over this thread you seem to mention potential trade benefits for the UK based on being separate from the EU. Can you name some benefits (perhaps let's say 3) that you expect will be negotiated more favourably for the UK within a year that the UK was unable to get as part of the EU. Also ... being part of a a trade bloc always has benefits and positives, but the two key negatives touted as 'deal-breakers' in the Brexit negotiations have been related to (1) sovereignty and (2) concessions. A few weeks ago Peter Verovšek wrote a short but pretty good article on effectively the illusion of sovereignty (https://www.socialeurope.eu/brexit-and-the-misunderstanding-of-sovereignty https://www.socialeurope.eu/brexit-and-the-misunderstanding-...) for the UK, and in terms of concessions it seems that a small nation with limited resources hardly makes a net loss by being part of a larger trade bloc: access to a huge market while exposing a small market of your own.