7 ms·

> 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 mar

> 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.
    - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
      The PM also said the NHS would be getting an extra £350m a week as a result of a Brexit dividend. Some people believed that too - although rather fewer believe it now.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - hardlianotion 6y ago
    In most cases, UK standards exceed EU standards. Nobody is interested in a race to the bottom.
    - Zenst 6y ago
      That certainly was so in many areas, less so as they synchronised more over time (many EU standards born out of originating UK ones). But definitely an opportunity to raise standards. Now - how that works if say the UK raises a standard and the impact upon EU imports. For example the EU regulations for `carper dust sucker` was questioned by Dyson for being flawed. Now if the UK does it's own standards that have to be followed for `carpet dust sucker` to be sold in the UK that exceeds EU standards then that could be interesting. So the prospect of a trade war via standards used to limit external competition and sudo subsidise companies in that cunning way - could be something we could well see down the line. That equally could work both ways. Which all makes how this trade agreement is worded in need of scrutiny as rules to protect one way, will also word both ways in such agreements to lock-in standards. Now if they refer to just EU standards as a base and no reference to equally protection to UK standards or whatever is the higher. Small details like that could have some interesting ramifications later on. One thing is for sure - we are still a long way off from a standard global shoe size that is used by all. Which say's little and lots about trade and standards country to country.
- pmontra 6y ago
  When you sell to any country you sell on their terms. When they sell to your country, they sell on your terms. You always have to meet their regulations unless you are so more powerful that you can twist their arm and do as you wish.
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    Yeah, exactly. Now the UK can trade with those countries on its own terms rather than involving the EU. That's a pretty big difference, and countries DO want to trade with the huge UK market.
    - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
      Then why are no countries or businesses queuing up to take advantage of the commercial opportunities that have become available?
- simonh 6y ago
  > Yes - but now we can trade with those countries on our terms… Er no, we get to trade with them on their terms, having just lost the benefits of any preferential terms negotiated by the EU. Those “overall terms depending on EU trade deals” were overwhelmingly favourable terms negotiated thanks to the immense negotiating power of the whole EU trade bloc. We’ve now lost almost all of that. And bear in mind a lot of these EU trade deals weren’t forced on us, we played a leading role in negotiating those deals ourselves. Now we’ve lost the benefit of a lot of that hard work. Fortunately we have negotiated maintaining trade access with some countries, including Canada and Japan under our former EU arrangements. On many other cases though I believe including India, no such luck so far.
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    Agree that's the situation in the short term, but there's no avoiding that. We can go on to negotiate and agree our own deals with those countries ourselves in the long term. They will be different agreements, obviously - while they may be lesser overall they can at least be more targeted to our specific interests rather than a whole bloc, which may yield some advantages for the UK. Again, not trying to say this is necessarily better than staying in, but it does have its own advantages as well as compromises.
    - simonh 6y ago
      It has severe disadvantages right now and for the near future, but might possibly lead to some benefits if we’re lucky eventually if you squint right. You’re not selling me on it.
      - breakfastduck 6y ago
        Not trying to, just rationalizing why the deals been set. I think it's actually a pretty fair compromise from both sides - doesn't necessarily mean it's better than being in though!
    - rndmio 6y ago
      Which countries? What major untapped markets are in need of what the UK exports but don't already have it? About 60% of our exports are services, particularly financial and insurance and we just lost passporting rights to the EU on those. The EU is not perfect but we've fucked off out of it without planning or preparing what to do next. I mean the deal that we'll be trading under in 7 days time has only just been agreed and isn't even ratified.
- randomsearch 6y ago
  Nope customs Union would have been fine, as it would have compromised between those that want the best for the economy and those that are more concerned about immigration. Those talking about “sovereignty” as if there is such a thing as sovereign vs non-sovereign nations are a minority of Brexit voters and did not need to be pandered to. Unfortunately they made up a good proportion of the ruling class.
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.

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.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    The PM also said the NHS would be getting an extra £350m a week as a result of a Brexit dividend. Some people believed that too - although rather fewer believe it now.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- hardlianotion 6y ago
  In most cases, UK standards exceed EU standards. Nobody is interested in a race to the bottom.
  - Zenst 6y ago
    That certainly was so in many areas, less so as they synchronised more over time (many EU standards born out of originating UK ones). But definitely an opportunity to raise standards. Now - how that works if say the UK raises a standard and the impact upon EU imports. For example the EU regulations for `carper dust sucker` was questioned by Dyson for being flawed. Now if the UK does it's own standards that have to be followed for `carpet dust sucker` to be sold in the UK that exceeds EU standards then that could be interesting. So the prospect of a trade war via standards used to limit external competition and sudo subsidise companies in that cunning way - could be something we could well see down the line. That equally could work both ways. Which all makes how this trade agreement is worded in need of scrutiny as rules to protect one way, will also word both ways in such agreements to lock-in standards. Now if they refer to just EU standards as a base and no reference to equally protection to UK standards or whatever is the higher. Small details like that could have some interesting ramifications later on. One thing is for sure - we are still a long way off from a standard global shoe size that is used by all. Which say's little and lots about trade and standards country to country.
pmontra 6y ago
When you sell to any country you sell on their terms. When they sell to your country, they sell on your terms. You always have to meet their regulations unless you are so more powerful that you can twist their arm and do as you wish.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  Yeah, exactly. Now the UK can trade with those countries on its own terms rather than involving the EU. That's a pretty big difference, and countries DO want to trade with the huge UK market.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    Then why are no countries or businesses queuing up to take advantage of the commercial opportunities that have become available?
simonh 6y ago
> Yes - but now we can trade with those countries on our terms… Er no, we get to trade with them on their terms, having just lost the benefits of any preferential terms negotiated by the EU. Those “overall terms depending on EU trade deals” were overwhelmingly favourable terms negotiated thanks to the immense negotiating power of the whole EU trade bloc. We’ve now lost almost all of that. And bear in mind a lot of these EU trade deals weren’t forced on us, we played a leading role in negotiating those deals ourselves. Now we’ve lost the benefit of a lot of that hard work. Fortunately we have negotiated maintaining trade access with some countries, including Canada and Japan under our former EU arrangements. On many other cases though I believe including India, no such luck so far.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  Agree that's the situation in the short term, but there's no avoiding that. We can go on to negotiate and agree our own deals with those countries ourselves in the long term. They will be different agreements, obviously - while they may be lesser overall they can at least be more targeted to our specific interests rather than a whole bloc, which may yield some advantages for the UK. Again, not trying to say this is necessarily better than staying in, but it does have its own advantages as well as compromises.
  - simonh 6y ago
    It has severe disadvantages right now and for the near future, but might possibly lead to some benefits if we’re lucky eventually if you squint right. You’re not selling me on it.
    - breakfastduck 6y ago
      Not trying to, just rationalizing why the deals been set. I think it's actually a pretty fair compromise from both sides - doesn't necessarily mean it's better than being in though!
  - rndmio 6y ago
    Which countries? What major untapped markets are in need of what the UK exports but don't already have it? About 60% of our exports are services, particularly financial and insurance and we just lost passporting rights to the EU on those. The EU is not perfect but we've fucked off out of it without planning or preparing what to do next. I mean the deal that we'll be trading under in 7 days time has only just been agreed and isn't even ratified.
randomsearch 6y ago
Nope customs Union would have been fine, as it would have compromised between those that want the best for the economy and those that are more concerned about immigration. Those talking about “sovereignty” as if there is such a thing as sovereign vs non-sovereign nations are a minority of Brexit voters and did not need to be pandered to. Unfortunately they made up a good proportion of the ruling class.

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.