Political relations between UK-EU

[bluethrunthru]

The means of dispute resolution should be in the trade deal. Anyone know if it is?

wasn't there supposed to be some sort of arbitration committee to be set up? Whats the betting the rushing through of the agreement means nothing has been done about that yet.

 

[bluethrunthru]

J D Sports CEO interviewed on R4 earlier said Brexit is costing them "double digit" millions ££'s and will lead to them moving over 1000 warehouse jobs into the EU. He described the impact as "considerably worse than feared".

Of course 1000 warehouse jobs go then all those businesses relying on those workers wages and the hauliers who move stuff in and out are all adversely impacted.

 

[metalblue]

The purification always took place in Europe because thats where the market is. There is no provision for large scale purification here because the home market is so small it makes such an investment unviable. You could argue investment could be made and a bid to encourage local consumption is made but its a brave lender and business owner who creates a facility for a market that does not exist at present in the teeth of the twin gales of Brexit and the pandemic.

And a fact the EU knew this was the case when they said it was ok. That is my only grumble here, the only thing that has changed in all of this is the EU saying yes then saying no after the fact.

Of course you’re right we could look to build our own purification capacity but not sure what that would do to pricing /competitiveness of the UK offering (ie tariffs on non-live product versus dead/processed and costs to purify)

 

[BobKowalski]

Completely ignored the point there Bob. They have the right to (because they have) but are they right to in this particular case given they gave the UK assurance/guidance it was ok and previously class B waters were just fine.

It’s almost certainly a consequence of a quick deal where not every I was dotted and T was crossed but that’s not the issue here.

No, I didn’t. The issue is that Brexit hands leverage to the EU over any UK business that wants to do business with the EU. This is especially true with a thin deal that reserves no rights for the UK in having a say or influence in future dealings. Our desire for absolute sovereignty is fine until you realise it applies just as equally to the EU.

They can say one thing in September and another in February, especially if member states reckon they can gain an advantage by changing rules to keep UK produce out. There is no requirement in the deal to request consultation on rule changes, because we didn’t want to give them the same. The result is the rules get changed or ‘reinterpreted‘ and we get notified a week later by post.

We cannot be moaning about countries trying to shaft us when we gave them the ability to do so.

 

[bluethrunthru]

No, I didn’t. The issue is that Brexit hands leverage to the EU over any UK business that wants to do business with the EU. This is especially true with a thin deal that reserves no rights for the UK in having a say or influence in future dealings. Our desire for absolute sovereignty is fine until you realise it applies just as equally to the EU.

They can say one thing in September and another in February, especially if member states reckon they can gain an advantage by changing rules to keep UK produce out. There is no requirement in the deal to request consultation on rule changes, because we didn’t want to give them the same. The result is the rules get changed or ‘reinterpreted‘ and we get notified a week later by post.

We cannot be moaning about countries trying to shaft us when we gave them the ability to do so.

its all a result of the half cocked nature of the Trade Deal which echoes the WA - the simple fact it it was all about bluff, bluster and optics not details ( we know why ) hence you end up with Eustace saying he believed something in a letter was somehow an agreement - had they noticed it and understood its relevance at the time why not get in enshrined in the Deal? Of course where the WA echoes come in is that in both cases MP's got a day to consider and debate its contents then surprise surprise it proves the great deal as presented is shot full of holes - maybe had intelligent people been allowed time to do a property job of scrutiny questions about stuff like this could be raised but its not about questions its about hugging the flag and saying you have got the bestest deal ever - until its shown that you haven't

 

[Vic]

Going back a good few years now, but joining the EU totally screwed our fishing industry, ports rapidly fell into decline. Around that time people
were also beginning to see the effects of the Common Agricultural Policy,
and the big boost it gave to the French farming industry. This is probably
the time when anti EU sentiment began to grow, coupled with the fact that we had a totally useless PM in Heath, who took us into it, and we are where we are.

UK fishing was in decline for a hundred years or more before we joined the EU, but it was Norway that screwed our fishing industry - by imposing a 200 mile limit (it's an independent coastal state, you know). Brexit so far has ruined the deal we had. The government made a big play of how we'd be able to agree annual quotas with Norway to fish in their waters - but as Norway doesn't really need access to our waters, we haven't got much to bargain with. It's not just shellfish exports, it's cod imports, and Brexit has scuppered both.

 

[BobKowalski]

Just as I thought, from the UK's derider in chief, we now have to accept
petulant kickbacks like the shellfish debacle, because we'd better get used
to the EU behaving like a spoilt brat, because, you know, we voted for it.
What you always seem to disregard is that this country does not have to put up with this sort of thing now, the EU has agreed, in a free trade deal, the fishing quotas, they now don't like it, pull these stunts, and these swift changes to the spirit of that must have repercussions. We now do not need to bow supinely to this kind of shit anymore, the waters they fish in are UK waters, if we suddenly, and we could, impose what the fuck we liked on those who fish there, this nonsense would end overnight. Talks are ongoing as we speak.
Then there is the ongoing nonsense about ports, lorry parks, queues and the like, I'm still waiting for pics showing the forthcoming mayhem starkly revealed with lorry queues predicted for sometime in the future. It's now becoming very easy to smile at these, and just wait until they all, inexorably and inevitably, turn to dust.

To give you an idea on border trade. Also factor in the approx 50% empty return rate as opposed to usual approx 25% rate. Then factor in that UK companies are paying to return empty lorries. There is a big hit on trade as well as increased direct costs and extra admin costs. Then bear in mind that it is the big multinationals that can absorb these costs. Small to medium sized businesses less so. And yes, some of it is Covid and some of it is Brexit, because it made sense to inflict a double hit on British Companies from a Govt that is committed to ‘fuck business’.

Also check out that M&S stores in Paris are closing and the video from BBC as British produce is not making it across the channel, then bear in mind that in six months we will start applying checks, so what sort of impact will that have on us as it currently stands?

Trade will reduce, costs will increase and companies that relied on friction free trade with Europe will go bust. That is Brexit and no amount of whining and ranting about the EU is changing that fact.

 

[meltonblue]

100% these are teething issues and let’s face it the EU has never made such a wide reaching agreement with an economy the size of the UK before so I won’t criticise them for being a little out of their depth here ;)

Had the UK never asked the question about shellfish then I would have no issue but because they did, and were given assurances by the EU in September 2019, I do. A sensible/pragmatic approach here would be to say 6 months pass whilst we sort it. I would be inclined to agree that it’s a result of a quick deal that left a few I’s to dot and T’s to cross and unfortunately you end up with different border controls making different interpretations.

More widely (if not already done or in progress) would be good to have a speedy EU/UK dispute resolution group setup with authority where these issues can be raised and resolved as they appear on both sides.

I saw Eustace said he’d publish the letter he got in 2019 about it, would be good to see as I can’t work out how that would ever be deemed good enough.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I saw Eustace said he’d publish the letter he got in 2019 about it, would be good to see as I can’t work out how that would ever be deemed good enough.

If you have a hand written note from a lad at school who said if you gave him half your Bounty Bar you could shag his sister check her out. If she is still fit you should redeem that "voucher". George Eustace will back you up. Its a contractual obligation.

 

[BobKowalski]

I saw Eustace said he’d publish the letter he got in 2019 about it, would be good to see as I can’t work out how that would ever be deemed good enough.

It wouldn’t, thing to do was build that guarantee into the deal.

Also, from PoliticsHome.

‘Exclusive: The shellfish industry claims that DEFRA admitted it was wrong about shellfish exports

"They now say that they believe on balance that the EU view, that the trade is not legal, is in fact correct," the bombshell email seen by PoliticsHome says‘

Exclusive: Shellfish Industry Leaders Claim DEFRA Privately Admitted The EU Was Right On The Shellfish Ban

The UK's leading trade body for the shellfish industry told its members that the government privately accepted that the European Union's ban on UK ...

www.politicshome.com