Brexit - the next steps

[Jack Knave]

The obvious example in relation to regulations,  is diesel engines and cars.   The EU frequently publish directives on diesel, I think we are up to directive 6 by now.   I don't see how you can export engines and cars unless you conform to such directives.    They would be unsellable in the EU, and possibly illegal.   Do the headbangers really think that we can just export what we want?   Are these people for real?

A contract is a contract. If you agree to something you can't go back on it without some quid pro quo.

[Jack Knave]

Yes it is. Haven't you been following the news recently?

By definition it isn't.

[Nearly Sane]

And it is very simple, my simpleton, a trade deal is a trade deal. A contract is a contract, it can't be changed on a whim by only one side.

Actually you have frequently argued the the EU does just that. But you have missed the point, they won't agree to a deal which would disadvantage the 27, and affect the basis of the free movement of goods.

[jeremyp]

And it is very simple, my simpleton, a trade deal is a trade deal. A contract is a contract, it can't be changed on a whim by only one side.

You clearly don't understand how contracts work. Any good contract has clauses in it that set out mechanisms to vary the terms in a change of circumstances.

Any trade deal with the EU will include a mechanism that allows the partners to change the regulations around products and services. That's one reason why they take an average of seven years to negotiate.

[wigginhall]

"Currently, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), total hydrocarbon (THC), non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) are regulated for most vehicle types, including cars, trucks (lorries), locomotives, tractors and similar machinery, barges, but excluding seagoing ships and aeroplanes. For each vehicle type, different standards apply. Compliance is determined by running the engine at a standardised test cycle. Non-compliant vehicles cannot be sold in the EU, but new standards do not apply to vehicles already on the roads."  (Wiki).

I suppose the headbangers will say, oh but the UK is special, and we can sell stuff that is non-compliant - dream on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards

[jeremyp]

By definition it isn't.

And yet, the EU has done it.

[Jack Knave]

And yet, the EU has done it.

That doesn't mean it is intrinsic to the divorce.

[Nearly Sane]

By definition it isn't.

What definition? The border between Gibraltar and Spain in terms of movement is part of the negotiations, just as the NI/Eire border is.

[Jack Knave]

Actually you have frequently argued the the EU does just that. But you have missed the point, they won't agree to a deal which would disadvantage the 27, and affect the basis of the free movement of goods.

Then we (especially the EU) have a problem...

[jeremyp]

That doesn't mean it is intrinsic to the divorce.

It is now.

[Jack Knave]

You clearly don't understand how contracts work. Any good contract has clauses in it that set out mechanisms to vary the terms in a change of circumstances.

Any trade deal with the EU will include a mechanism that allows the partners to change the regulations around products and services. That's one reason why they take an average of seven years to negotiate.

But you lot are implying we will just roll over and play their game even if it kills us. We can insist on things as well and so restrict what they can change.

[Nearly Sane]

Then we have a problem...

Yep, the one that had been being pointed out for some time in this thread. The idea that the deal will favour the UK above everyone of the 27 when they all have a veto is naive. Further I would suspect that it won't be a case of one  set of regulations on hoovers, for example, will mean no hoovers, it will he looked on as a breach of the entire agreement.

I see you added particularly the EU. And no that wouldn't be the case since it is 44% of our exports against 8% of theirs.

[Nearly Sane]

But you lot are implying we will just roll over and play their game even if it kills us. We can insist on things as well and so restrict what they can change.

Not really, this is where size is important!

[Jack Knave]

It is now.

Simples. We say no to them and tell them to fuck off and go on to WTO rules which will hurt them. Basically call their bluff.

[Nearly Sane]

Simples. We say no to them and tell them to fuck off and go on to WTO rules which will hurt them. Basically call their bluff.

and hurts us more, that s is the very definition of cutting your nose off to spite your face. 44% of our exports, 8% of theirs

[Jack Knave]

What definition? The border between Gibraltar and Spain in terms of movement is part of the negotiations, just as the NI/Eire border is.

That's not what this is about, you need to follow the news.

[Jack Knave]

Yep, the one that had been being pointed out for some time in this thread. The idea that the deal will favour the UK above everyone of the 27 when they all have a veto is naive. Further I would suspect that it won't be a case of one  set of regulations on hoovers, for example, will mean no hoovers, it will he looked on as a breach of the entire agreement.

I see you added particularly the EU. And no that wouldn't be the case since it is 44% of our exports against 8% of theirs.

But that 8% is mostly high end goods like cars etc. and they won't like that.

Our 44% is for exports but for total trade its about 15-20%.

[Nearly Sane]

That's not what this is about, you need to follow the news.

essentially from what Spain have said it is. Of course Michael Howard wants to go to war, but Michael Fallon, for once, got the point.

[Jack Knave]

Not really, this is where size is important!

They aren't as big as they seem! 

[Nearly Sane]

But that 8% is mostly high end goods like cars etc. and they won't like that.

Our 44% is for exports but for total trade its about 15-20%.

And you would then logically have to apply the same analysis to the 8% for them which would take it down to less than 2%

[wigginhall]

There are probably legitimate concerns about Gibraltar actually.   1.  It is practically a tax haven, and has privileges because of London financial markets; 2.  it uses outside labour, implying an open border; 3. it has an international airport, again, involves issues to do with freedom of movement.

It you combine that with the, shall we say, Ruritanian tendency amongst UK politicians, you can see why EU is raising Gibraltar.

[torridon]

Petition, below, in favour of the proposal for individual opt-in for EU citizenship after Brexit.  Unlikely to be agreed during the negotiations I suppose, but we have a third of a million signatures so far.

https://www.change.org/p/eu-offer-european-citizenship-to-uk-citizens?recruiter=false&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

[Harrowby Hall]

But that 8% is mostly high end goods like cars etc. and they won't like that.

Indeed. Cars like Rolls Royce (German owned) Bentley (German owned) Nissan (French controlled) Vauxhall (Imminently: French owned) Mini (German owned).

Get real.   

And by the way - Heathrow Airport (Spanish owned)

[Jack Knave]

And you would then logically have to apply the same analysis to the 8% for them which would take it down to less than 2%

Where have you got this 8% from, I've heard it is 17%. And you gave that figure as the exports to the UK from the EU so you can't do that.

Secondly, as these are high end goods they only come from a few members of the EU so for them individually it is much higher, if not their biggest market. Most EU members have relatively very little trade with us. So in the end the BMW's of this world will be nagging Merkel or who ever to give use a tariff free deal.

We buy more from the EU than they from us by about £60 billion and as it is mostly from Germany etc. they will be the ones who will suffer, and they are the ones with the biggest clout in the EU and so will press gang the rest to do as they are told. Win, win. 

[jakswan]

and hurts us more, that s is the very definition of cutting your nose off to spite your face. 44% of our exports, 8% of theirs

Why don't these arguments work for Scotland/UK?