5 ms·

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 t

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.
      - Fordec 6y ago
        Well in this generic deal the UK has lost Financial Passporting rights to the EU. RIP London as an economic hub of European trade.
  - ska 6y ago
    Sure, you get more freedom to negotiate your own terms, at the cost of being a significantly smaller player. So you lose some leverage and gain some elsewhere. It's really to early to tell how this will shake out, but it's obviously as silly to assume either that in general UK will be able negotiate better deals on its own than as part of the EU, or that it won't be able to negotiate any good deals.
    - breakfastduck 6y ago
      And that's the real stuff. You gain some you lose some, on both sides. We have no idea really how it will play out, depends hugely on how the UK govt acts in the next few years.
      - ska 6y ago
        One thing I think that is telling is that I heard the UK government has characterized this as a "Canada like" agreement (e.g. NAFTA). I think there is some deeper truth in this. UK is setting itself up to be in a very similar role, i.e. Canada::USA -> UK::EU. When you are the junior partner in a tightly coupled trade partnership, you have a lot of nominal freedom in practice you are going to steered by the larger player, both intentionally and not. Who was it that said, "When America sneezes, Canada gets a cold"? I think that was originally a european saying, so we've come full circle. I'm not sure people in the UK have really come to terms with this, yet. There is no plausible return path to, say, pre-war UK on the world stage. There might be room for another Canada though.
        djmobley 6y ago
        When people refer to a “Canada” style trade deal in the context of Brexit, they are referring to the free trade deal between Canada and the EU. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_T...
        ska 6y ago
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
    That's an entirely different point, not any point missed by the comment you're replying to. What connects the two points is that they hold similar appeal in theory, and are entirely meaningless in practice. The UK has signed a number of trade agreements already, and none of them contain meaningful differences to the EU agreements the UK was previously part of.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

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.
    - Fordec 6y ago
      Well in this generic deal the UK has lost Financial Passporting rights to the EU. RIP London as an economic hub of European trade.
- ska 6y ago
  Sure, you get more freedom to negotiate your own terms, at the cost of being a significantly smaller player. So you lose some leverage and gain some elsewhere. It's really to early to tell how this will shake out, but it's obviously as silly to assume either that in general UK will be able negotiate better deals on its own than as part of the EU, or that it won't be able to negotiate any good deals.
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    And that's the real stuff. You gain some you lose some, on both sides. We have no idea really how it will play out, depends hugely on how the UK govt acts in the next few years.
    - ska 6y ago
      One thing I think that is telling is that I heard the UK government has characterized this as a "Canada like" agreement (e.g. NAFTA). I think there is some deeper truth in this. UK is setting itself up to be in a very similar role, i.e. Canada::USA -> UK::EU. When you are the junior partner in a tightly coupled trade partnership, you have a lot of nominal freedom in practice you are going to steered by the larger player, both intentionally and not. Who was it that said, "When America sneezes, Canada gets a cold"? I think that was originally a european saying, so we've come full circle. I'm not sure people in the UK have really come to terms with this, yet. There is no plausible return path to, say, pre-war UK on the world stage. There might be room for another Canada though.
      - djmobley 6y ago
        When people refer to a “Canada” style trade deal in the context of Brexit, they are referring to the free trade deal between Canada and the EU. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_T...
        ska 6y ago
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  That's an entirely different point, not any point missed by the comment you're replying to. What connects the two points is that they hold similar appeal in theory, and are entirely meaningless in practice. The UK has signed a number of trade agreements already, and none of them contain meaningful differences to the EU agreements the UK was previously part of.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]