Trade Deal, or No Deal...

[french frank]

People voted for Brexit for many reasons - most I think unconnected with trade but more to do with the feeling that Brussels bureaucrats were getting too much unaccountable power

Not sure it was quite as specific. I think that British insularity (a vague concept, not exactly xenophobia or racism) was at the root. 'We like doing things our way, our familiar way, our traditional way) with which the 'Take Back Control' message clicked. A woolly notion of 'Us' and 'Them' and we don't need 'Them', whoever they are. That harnessed nastier elements which resulted in racist attacks and the murder of an MP, but I don't think they were representative of the vast majority of British people.

- the stupid arrangement that BJ + Frost agreed to re NI shows just how the crafty use of totally unnecessary red tape can destroy livelihoods and in NI force the re-union of Ireland.

One thing I've never fully understood. Where does the DUP (et similes) want the border with the EU to be? Do they want a hard border with the RoI, or no border at all (in which case why Brexit?) or a border in … no, no, we don't want that!

[Frances_iom]

why are the new regs being introduced - plant hygiene, animal welfare, food standards etc - all are currently unnecessary - the UK regs were accepted for 40+ years nothing in these has changed other than the fact that the UK has opted out of the club - the UK says it has no intention of imposing such regulations on goods etc moving from Republic of Ireland into NI - the border was effectively weaponised by the EU as a stick to beat the UK with - the Republic could easily monitor trade and any which could cause a threat to the safety of the EU dealt with but no they have insisted on effectively third world regulations on what was once their major trading partner.

[oddoneout]

why are the new regs being introduced - plant hygiene, animal welfare, food standards etc - all are currently unnecessary - the UK regs were accepted for 40+ years nothing in these has changed other than the fact that the UK has opted out of the club - the UK says it has no intention of imposing such regulations on goods etc moving from Republic of Ireland into NI - the border was effectively weaponised by the EU as a stick to beat the UK with - the Republic could easily monitor trade and any which could cause a threat to the safety of the EU dealt with but no they have insisted on effectively third world regulations on what was once their major trading partner.

As you say, we are no longer a member of the club so different rules apply, as they do to other 'third countries'. I suspect not a few of the problems to do with animal and plant health related issues(which could otherwise have been 'rolled over') have to do with doubts about how well the UK will continue with the same standards - the noises government has made in such matters aren't exactly encouraging and don't indicate binding commitment. I don't think the UK is in a particularly good position regarding being given the benefit of the doubt these days, not least as the necessary infrastructure and staff aren't even in place currently.

[french frank]

why are the new regs being introduced - plant hygiene, animal welfare, food standards etc - all are currently unnecessary - the UK regs were accepted for 40+ years nothing in these has changed other than the fact that the UK has opted out of the club

Can the UK be trusted not to change its environmental, labour rights &c &c standards - even if they are currently aligned with the EU's? Now that we have taken back control, why should we not change any of our standards at the stroke of a pen? What happens then? Whether the EU has 'weaponised' the situation is moot: the UK signed an agreement which it now seems to think wasn't a very good move. The fact remains: there is a land border between the UK and the EU. How should that be settled?

[Frances_iom]

Can the UK be trusted not to change its environmental, labour rights &c &c standards - even if they are currently aligned with the EU's? Now that we have taken back control, why should we not change any of our standards at the stroke of a pen? ...

because the EU could do the same + thus put a highly costly stop to such imports - in practice any changes to regulations on both sides would need considerable lead times and should, if both parties were acting rationally, be resolved by meetings + agreement as to what changes are unacceptable to the other and what are unimportant - at present I see no rationality but just a resurrection of the old Prussian approach "Es ist verboten"

[french frank]

because the EU could do the same

Yes, but the UK is already trying to move the goalposts, isn't it? The EU doesn't say 'we'll do the same' (that wouldn't be in its interests), it says: that's against international law - again. There still seems to me to be the idea that the UK has signed up to whatever is in its interests (e.g. Horizon Europe) and still thinks it should be given special treatment as a (geographically) close neighbour.

[Frances_iom]

...There still seems to me to be the idea that the UK has signed up to whatever is in its interests (e.g. Horizon Europe) and still thinks it should be given special treatment as a (geographically) close neighbour.

True but a rational agreement could dispense with the need for a border on Ireland or in the Irish Sea - that this was not forthcoming is an indication to me of bad will from the very start obviously compounded by the attitude of BJ who I think after Cameron will be judged as the worst PM since WW1 (I ignore May who was totally out of her depth and with a parliament dominated by a small clique many of whom are now responsible for the current mess).

The EU demonstrated in its complete f@ckup in, albeit briefly, invoking article 16 that it had no concerns over an Irish border and that all the previous (and indeed current) posturing had been merely a bargaining ploy against the UK which it needs to punish, as it did to Greece, to demonstrate that Brussels must be obeyed

[oddoneout]

because the EU could do the same + thus put a highly costly stop to such imports - in practice any changes to regulations on both sides would need considerable lead times and should, if both parties were acting rationally, be resolved by meetings + agreement as to what changes are unacceptable to the other and what are unimportant - at present I see no rationality but just a resurrection of the old Prussian approach "Es ist verboten"

If the EU wants to make changes it has to involve all the parties(countries) involved and go through due process. The UK seems to be keen to avoid primary legislation in such matters so changes can( and doubtless will) be made without any real discussion or scrutiny; that's not likely to inspire confidence. Some of the post Brexit 'arrangements' may not work well between the UK devolved governments as I understand it, let alone between the UK and EU.

[french frank]

True but a rational agreement could dispense with the need for a border on Ireland or in the Irish Sea - that this was not forthcoming is an indication to me of bad will from the very start …
The EU demonstrated in its complete f@ckup in, albeit briefly, invoking article 16 that it had no concerns over an Irish border and that all the previous (and indeed current) posturing had been merely a bargaining ploy against the UK which it needs to punish, as it did to Greece, to demonstrate that Brussels must be obeyed

Well, it's a point of view It seems to disregard that the EU always has its supranational interests to protect to the satisfaction of all member states; yes, it's bigger and carries more clout; but countries have a choice: to be in (with the rest) or out. I have no idea what 'rational agreement' was available to satisfy the triangular interests of the EU, UK and Unionists.

[Frances_iom]

If the EU wants to make changes it has to involve all the parties(countries) involved and go through due process. ...

I guess the UK could decide overnight that all animals be shot fully conscious or that maybe exported alive packed in tiny crates but all the plant hygiene would generally take months if not years to change - even the EU could get its ducks in line for such opposing such changes - in practice it is likely to be things like GM crops that need be agreed and here some vectors such as insects + birds have no concept of political boundaries.

Re the 4 UK nations - here one common feature is the inability of Westminster to liaise properly, maybe this is also one component in the ever deepening UK/EU disputes which I suspect will get considerably worse under the current regimes neither of which can afford to admit errors and will just sleepwalk into ever deeper disputes.

[DracoM]

Esp with Frost i/c.

[french frank]

Esp with Frost i/c.

Uhhh, r-r-right hand down a bit …

[Pulcinella]

Harriet Harman has a cunning plan:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/mar/16/harriet-harman-10-point-plan-to-allow-uk-musicians-to-tour-eu

[french frank]

Harriet Harman has a cunning plan:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/20...ans-to-tour-eu

Good move, HH

Don't quite understand this: "The government has said that making exemptions for musicians would go against its mandate to end freedom of movement, and said the door is open if the EU wishes to renegotiate."

So … no freedom of movement for EU musicians to come here, but the EU can reconsider its requirements allowing UK musicians to tour in the EU? Is that their position? Ball in EU's court?

[cloughie]

Harriet Harman has a cunning plan:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/20...ans-to-tour-eu

Looks a bit like the MU exchange agreements with the USA in the 60s.