UK Politics: Fishing for a deal

[lessthanluke]

10 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Not to be picky or anything, but doesn’t the whole “Wales doesn’t exist” shtick relate to a map put out by the EU, not the English?

It does indeed. Never said otherwise. I thought William was English. As he's not nevermind!

[lessthanluke]

10 hours ago, williamjm said:

Sorry about that, as John points out I'm also not English and I do know that there is a fine line between jokes about my native Scotland that I'll find amusing and jokes that I'll find irritating.

Apologies. Yeah I'm rather prickly when it comes to English people making jokes about Wales in general tbh. Scottish people can crack on though! 

I know we have met in person but it was so long ago I couldn't remember your accent and it was in England so I assumed incorrectly. 

[A wilding]

13 hours ago, john said:

The references to car seat safety, or dying in a fire due to lax UK standards don’t sound very realistic to me.

However unrealistic it might seem, recent laxity in UK building cladding regulations is an unquestionable fact, and has resulted in multiple fatal fires, most notably the Grenfell disaster 

[john]

59 minutes ago, A wilding said:

However unrealistic it might seem, recent laxity in UK building cladding regulations is an unquestionable fact, and has resulted in multiple fatal fires, most notably the Grenfell disaster 

Not sure what this has to do with our trade relationship with the EU, or lack of it. Are we shipping tower blocks to the continent? Yes, people die in fires, I’d didn’t mean to be blasé about it but Grenfell Tower’s cladding was not up to regulation in the first place so it doesn’t make much difference if Britain ignores its own regulations or some supposedly safer EU one.

[john]

@Filippa Eilhart currently translating a set of provisions to allow planes to continue to fly between UK and EU from 1st Jan. This also seems to include the reciprocity idea rejected by Britain in the proposed trade agreement. But in this case, since there’s apparently no world aviation rules to fall back on, like there is with the WTO rules, Britain doesn’t have much choice but to accept.

[A wilding]

37 minutes ago, john said:

Not sure what this has to do with our trade relationship with the EU, or lack of it. Are we shipping tower blocks to the continent? Yes, people die in fires, I’d didn’t mean to be blasé about it but Grenfell Tower’s cladding was not up to regulation in the first place so it doesn’t make much difference if Britain ignores its own regulations or some supposedly safer EU one.

While Grenfell is still sub judice, I think there is a consensus that it was not only a matter of near fraud on the part of the contractors but also one of reduced standards and lax enforcement (something the current UK government is fond of doing under the banner of "cutting red tape"). This cause was implicitly admitted by the Government with its subsequent programme to replace recent cladding on hundreds of other buildings (however slowly this is being implemented)

The point was to argue against the assertion made up thread, that it was ridiculous to suppose that the UK would not be tempted to unilaterally lower standards maintained throughout the rest of the EU, if it gained the power to do so.

[Filippa Eilhart]

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/brexit_files/com_827_1_en_act_part1_v1.pdf

„It follows that, in the absence of an agreement between the Union and the United Kingdom governing the matter, there would be no legal basis for the provision of air services between the United Kingdom and the Member States by the respective carriers after the end of the transition period under the Withdrawal Agreement.”

„The rights granted to United Kingdom carriers being subject to a principle of “reciprocity”, the proposed Regulation (Article 6) lays down a mechanism to ensure that the rights enjoyed by Union carriers in the United Kingdom stay equivalent to those granted to UK carriers under the proposed Regulation. If that is not the case, the Commission is empowered to adopt the necessary measures to correct the situation by means of implementing acts, including the limitation or withdrawal of operating authorisations of United Kingdom air carriers. The assessment of the level of equivalence and the adoption of corrective measures by the Commission are not solely linked to strict, formal correspondence between the two legal orders; this is because of the marked differences between the respective markets and in order to avoid a blind mirroring approach - which might in the end prove counter to the Union interest.”

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

On 12/12/2020 at 1:34 AM, Heartofice said:

A better example would be that the EU imposes tougher measures on child car seats, and the UK imposes it's own tough measures, but the EU determines that those measures are not the 'same' as theirs, even if the UK's are in fact better it wouldn't matter, and so would impose punishing tariffs and measures. And yes the word punish is relevant here.
It would be a matter of interpretation of what child safety would mean in this case, and without a neutral body to decide before those measures are taken then it could all get rather acrimonious.

It's called equivalence determination, and it's a process the EU is well versed in undertaking, having just concluded an equivalence arrangement on shellfish with the USA. But the UK has never done it because it was always the EU doing it on behalf of all members. You enter into a process to determine if the respective standard achieve an equivalent outcome, in both direction, and if you agree they are equivalent then there is no penalty on either side. Of course the UK may be the one to refuse equivalence as they don't want their market to be flooded with EU product.

The thing with divergence though is that you diverge from each other's standards on outcomes not just methods. So there can be no equivalence in such situations.

[Zorral]

In the meantime, EU's commie-inspired unfair determination to have safe food regulations or not, here's this:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/12/brexit-stockpiling-causing-10-mile-tailbacks-calais

"Brexit stockpiling causing 10-mile tailbacks in Calais
Severe delays as businesses try to get goods into Britain before a potential no-deal Brexit on 1 January"

There and Here, January and February are going to be such fun times.

 

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's called equivalence determination, and it's a process the EU is well versed in undertaking, having just concluded an equivalence arrangement on shellfish with the USA. But the UK has never done it because it was always the EU doing it on behalf of all members. You enter into a process to determine if the respective standard achieve an equivalent outcome, in both direction, and if you agree they are equivalent then there is no penalty on either side. Of course the UK may be the one to refuse equivalence as they don't want their market to be flooded with EU product.

The thing with divergence though is that you diverge from each other's standards on outcomes not just methods. So there can be no equivalence in such situations.

Is this actually the same? We’re not talking about regression of standards ( something the UK has no problem with) , the issue is dynamic alignment, as in, if the EU supposedly ups it’s standards then the UK has to follow.. and in the same way. 
 

Also, who is the arbiter of those decisions in your case? And are tariffs made in response allowed?

[karaddin]

On 12/12/2020 at 4:54 AM, argonak said:

That's what the current situation looks like to this outside observer anyway.

Seriously. I've been following these discussions on and off for years now and the vast majority of the complaints come across as "well yes, that's how international trade negotiation works as the smaller sovereign state negotiating with an economic major power". 

I can't tell if it's genuine inability to recognise this due to decades being part of the major power, or if they just want all of the perks of being EU members without any of the responsibilities. You wanted to be treated like a sovereign state - this is what that's like.

[Liffguard]

42 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I can't tell if it's genuine inability to recognise this due to decades being part of the major power, or if they just want all of the perks of being EU members without any of the responsibilities. 

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[Padraig]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

We’re not talking about regression of standards ( something the UK has no problem with) , the issue is dynamic alignment, as in, if the EU supposedly ups it’s standards then the UK has to follow.. and in the same way. 

This was the issue identified at the very beginning.  "Sovereignty" v access to the EU market.  It became clearer when the UK rejected a soft Brexit (e.g. staying in EFTA).

The more access the UK wants, the bigger the hurdles.  They've spent all this time trying to square that giraffe.

[Poobah]

2 hours ago, karaddin said:

Seriously. I've been following these discussions on and off for years now and the vast majority of the complaints come across as "well yes, that's how international trade negotiation works as the smaller sovereign state negotiating with an economic major power". 

I can't tell if it's genuine inability to recognise this due to decades being part of the major power, or if they just want all of the perks of being EU members without any of the responsibilities. You wanted to be treated like a sovereign state - this is what that's like.

Rule Britannia! Empire rah-rah!

[The Anti-Targ]

6 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Is this actually the same? We’re not talking about regression of standards ( something the UK has no problem with) , the issue is dynamic alignment, as in, if the EU supposedly ups it’s standards then the UK has to follow.. and in the same way. 
 

Also, who is the arbiter of those decisions in your case? And are tariffs made in response allowed?

There is not usually an arbitrator with equivalence determinations. Normally the agency that administers the relevant standard domestically will negotiate equivalence with the counterpart agency along with the respective trade ministries. Though often there is a comprehensive equivalence process to cover a whole sector rather than individual measures. The US-EU shellfish equivalence covered everything from harvest to export, and not just individual measures such as shellfish algal toxin management. But sometimes you can only negotiate equivalence measure by measure.

There appears to be something strange going on with talk on standards. The EU is well practiced at equivalence, if the UK wants to maintain an alignment with an EU standard but with differing methods then it should be possible to achieve equivalence. The only issue with equivalence is that it takes time, and until equivalence is agreed there will either be a prohibition on entry or tariffs. The EU can be bastards when it comes to negotiating equivalence but they do enter into and do it in reasonably good faith. It took years for the US-EU shellfish equivalence to be achieved, and during that time the US was banned from sending most shellfish to the EU, except I think scallops. So it's not an overnight solution or quick-fix. But there is absolutely a well established process. And it's well covered in guidelines from the WTO.

[Heartofice]

 

Interesting thread on the negotiations:

 

Quote

The EU has dropped its insistence on a 'ratchet clause' which would have formalised the principle both sides should keep up with each other's standards. It's now ready to cater for divergence in the future so long as there are strong safeguards to rebalance unfair competition.
This is a shift from the EU, which previously rejected managed divergence as too messy and risky for its economies. They worried it would create constant uncertainty for them. It thus represents a fair departure from the EU's opening position on LPF.

There is a difference between having a commitment to match standards hard-wired into the deal, failure to comply with which would be a breach of the agreement, and a mechanism written into the text catering for a decision to diverge and accept rebalancing measures in return.
What the sides are now trying to thrash out is how unfair competition would be defined, the process for triggering rebalancing measures, and how extensive they'd be. The EU originally wanted the Commission to have the unilateral right to apply them - hence 'lightning tariffs'.

That demand angered the UK, and has now been diluted by Brussels which accepts there needs to be due process based on evidence. One EU proposal is for a 'distortion test' that could be triggered by either side. They're also open to setting up an independent arbitrage system.

The EU stresses this would only apply in cases of 'significant divergences' in standards - it wouldn't be used to scrutinise the minutiae of every British law. 'At a certain stage the competitive advantage might become so big you have to do something. How do you manage that?'

 Key for the EU is speed of response. UK is open to these ideas but is concerned about the size and scope of rebalancing measures. It wants unfair competition in specific sectors to be addressed with tariffs in those sectors. On LPF, the EU has been wedded to cross-retaliation.

But cross-retaliation is for *breaches*. So could a middle-ground be found here? Some don't think it's worth sacrificing a deal over. 'Is either side going to collapse an entire trade deal over what would be a very sectoral issue, over which you could impose sectoral tariffs?'

It's not impossible to see a way through that ticks UK red line on sovereignty & EU one on protecting the Single Market. That's what negotiators have been hammering away at. Risk of No Deal is still 'very high'. But if so it'll be over 'a very minimal subset of open points'.

 

[Raja]

Grim stuff from NHS Providers ( which represents 216 NHS Trusts) - Here's their letter to the PM.  the vaccine news is a welcome relief but the trajectory at the moment is *not good*

Quote

Evidence over the last fortnight shows that the rate of COVID-19 patients leaving hospital is considerably slower than it was in the first wave. In some areas, the numbers of COVID-19 inpatients is increasing. Taken together, this is placing significant pressure on hospital beds.The NHS had 500 COVID-19 patients in hospital beds at the beginning of September. As of Thursday 10 December,there were 13,000 hospitalised COVID-19 patients

Over each of the last five winters,demand for NHS beds has significantly outstripped capacity. Yet we are now facing the extremely concerning prospect of the NHS having10,000 fewer beds(9%)in operation than last year, due to infection control measures, and many thousands of the remaining beds occupied by COVID-19 patients

Trust leaders are convinced that the only way they can meet these demands is by controlling the level of COVID-19 infection and,hence,the number of hospitalised COVID-19 patients. Tight restrictions on social contact are the only current means of achieving this.The evidence of the last fortnight, following Thanksgiving celebrations in the USA, is also very clear.

A relaxation of restrictions on social contact, combined with the natural desire to celebrate a traditional festival, inevitably increases the spread of the virus. Whilst we are not, at this point, asking for a change in the proposed Christmas rules, we are concerned that the current public debate on these rules is ignoring the significant extra risk involved in this temporary relaxation.The prevailing public perception is “thank goodness we can celebrate Christmas”. We believe it is vital for the public to understand that any extra social contact,particularly with those who are vulnerable to the effects of the virus,is risky and that they need to think very carefully before initiating such contact over the Christmas period

 

[The Anti-Targ]

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

 

Interesting thread on the negotiations:

 

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

The EU has dropped its insistence on a 'ratchet clause' which would have formalised the principle both sides should keep up with each other's standards. It's now ready to cater for divergence in the future so long as there are strong safeguards to rebalance unfair competition.
This is a shift from the EU, which previously rejected managed divergence as too messy and risky for its economies. They worried it would create constant uncertainty for them. It thus represents a fair departure from the EU's opening position on LPF.

There is a difference between having a commitment to match standards hard-wired into the deal, failure to comply with which would be a breach of the agreement, and a mechanism written into the text catering for a decision to diverge and accept rebalancing measures in return.
What the sides are now trying to thrash out is how unfair competition would be defined, the process for triggering rebalancing measures, and how extensive they'd be. The EU originally wanted the Commission to have the unilateral right to apply them - hence 'lightning tariffs'.

That demand angered the UK, and has now been diluted by Brussels which accepts there needs to be due process based on evidence. One EU proposal is for a 'distortion test' that could be triggered by either side. They're also open to setting up an independent arbitrage system.

The EU stresses this would only apply in cases of 'significant divergences' in standards - it wouldn't be used to scrutinise the minutiae of every British law. 'At a certain stage the competitive advantage might become so big you have to do something. How do you manage that?'

 Key for the EU is speed of response. UK is open to these ideas but is concerned about the size and scope of rebalancing measures. It wants unfair competition in specific sectors to be addressed with tariffs in those sectors. On LPF, the EU has been wedded to cross-retaliation.

But cross-retaliation is for *breaches*. So could a middle-ground be found here? Some don't think it's worth sacrificing a deal over. 'Is either side going to collapse an entire trade deal over what would be a very sectoral issue, over which you could impose sectoral tariffs?'

It's not impossible to see a way through that ticks UK red line on sovereignty & EU one on protecting the Single Market. That's what negotiators have been hammering away at. Risk of No Deal is still 'very high'. But if so it'll be over 'a very minimal subset of open points'.

 

That all sounds more like what I would expect to pert of any agreement. Of course there is no way the EU can get away with this being a benefit solely for the UK in the long term, so it has the effect of allowing other countries to force this sort of arrangement into their FTAs with the EU, since wearing the tariffs will be better than the costs of compliance in some cases. If we could pay tariffs and eliminate everything we do over and above the base NZ regulations (which is quite a lot), for our meat and dairy trade into the EU that may well mean a modest net savings for current exporters. But even greater benefit is the expansion of the number of businesses who could enter the EU market who are currently shut out of the market in practice because the cost of implementing all the additional EU conditions is a barrier that is not worth it if the attempt to enter the market doesn't work out.

[Zorral]

What in the world kind of effed-up $hyte is this anyway.

 

Quote

Boris Johnson faced a rising tide of anger from senior Tories and business leaders last night as he appeared ready to embrace a no-deal Brexit and prepared Royal Navy gunboats to defend UK fishing waters.

 

With the prime minister and the European commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, due to decide on Sunday whether to halt stalled talks and make the momentous decision to accept no deal – an outcome that would lead to tariffs and quotas on UK-EU trade and rising prices – Johnson’s handling of the final stage of negotiations has caused astonishment in his own party, and the EU.

Fearing the disastrous effects of no deal, former cabinet ministers called for talks to resume despite Sunday’s “final deadline”, to make sure 2021 does not begin against a backdrop of twin crises caused by the pandemic and Brexit.

 

Only we in the USA can give you all  run for this level of nincompoopery.

 

[ants]

So they're continuing talks, right?