Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
From the BBC article, the extensions didn't matter. We had already legislated for the anti-avoidance before the referendum, it was just implementation that had a delay to allow those affected to sort themselves out.
The solution of course, is just to rejoin the goddamn customs union. Then there's no need for any hard trade border anywhere. Not between the continent and ROI. Not between ROI and NI. And not between NI and GB.
This is a stupid problem of the UK Government's own making. They messed up a perfectly fine system just because they wanted votes from the more militant and extreme type of Brexiter, the type that wasn't satisfied with merely leaving the EU, but insisted on ending free trade and freedom of movement as well.
Nothing will get done about it with Sunak in power of course, but I do think we will rejoin the customs union at some point, when we have a government that understand the ridiculousness of leaving it. But only when there's a change of government as this lot will do nothing, because they want to save face and not admit that they messed up.
Oh the irony. So in the same post, you are both accusing the UK Government of making a decision to satisfy what you describe as 'the more militant and extreme type of Brexiter,', and then apparently suggesting that we should change our whole trade policy for the entire UK by joining the Customs Union, just to satisfy the conflicting demands of the extremists on both sides in one small part of the UK (The Ulster Unionists who won't accept a border in the Irish Sea, and Sinn Fein who won't accept one along the NI/Irish Republic border).
So in your eyes, is it OK or not OK to make Government policies that are mainly designed to satisfy (alleged) extremists?
Oh the irony. So in the same post, you are both accusing the UK Government of making a decision to satisfy what you describe as 'the more militant and extreme type of Brexiter,', and then apparently suggesting that we should change our whole trade policy for the entire UK by joining the Customs Union, just to satisfy the conflicting demands of the extremists on both sides in one small part of the UK (The Ulster Unionists who won't accept a border in the Irish Sea, and Sinn Fein who won't accept one along the NI/Irish Republic border).
So in your eyes, is it OK or not OK to make Government policies that are mainly designed to satisfy (alleged) extremists?
The point here is that only the more extreme Brexiters wanted to leave the Customs Union. Reversing that wouldn't just satisfy the parties in NI, it would be the right thing for everyone else except the extreme Brexiters.
Oh the irony. So in the same post, you are both accusing the UK Government of making a decision to satisfy what you describe as 'the more militant and extreme type of Brexiter,', and then apparently suggesting that we should change our whole trade policy for the entire UK by joining the Customs Union, just to satisfy the conflicting demands of the extremists on both sides in one small part of the UK (The Ulster Unionists who won't accept a border in the Irish Sea, and Sinn Fein who won't accept one along the NI/Irish Republic border).
So in your eyes, is it OK or not OK to make Government policies that are mainly designed to satisfy (alleged) extremists?
I don't think you can call the Ulster Unionists (or even the DUP, which I presume you were referring to) and Sinn Fein extremists, at least not any more.
And besides, rejoining the customs union would not just benefit Sinn Fein and the DUP. It would benefit anyone who wanted easier trade with the EU, something that would feed through to all of us (as customers).
Both unionists and republicans have legitimate concerns, and erecting barriers either between GB/NI or between NI/ROI is making life difficult. There were not barriers before, why should there be now? And what tangible benefit do these barriers bring?
Former PMs like Major and Blair did a lot to make things easier in NI. The current lot are just making things difficult again.
I have yet to hear any acceptable justification for leaving the customs union, other than nonsense like "We voted for Brexit, and a Brexit that remains in the customs union is not real Brexit". What utter drivel. Does that mean that a Remain that doesn't involve joining the Euro not a "real Remain"? Try telling Poland, or other EU countries with their own currency, that. What we have seen is the equivalent of having a wafer-thin majority for Remain and joining the euro as a result, because of course a 52% vote for Remain would be a glorious victory and clear evidence that we all want to join the euro.
There certainly seems to be no good reason to cause problems in NI, erect trade barriers, and make trade difficult between the UK and EU.
George Eustice has slagged off the Australia trade deal he had some involvement in getting (although claiming the bits DEFRA negotiated were the best ones):
Fmr Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK."
Eustice: "Overall the truth of the matter is that the UK gave away far too much for far too little in return." Says best bits were negotiated by DEFRA and worst bits by Dept for Trade, at the time headed by Liz Truss. Says if we don't recognise mistakes they'll be repeated.
Eustice: "We did not actually need to give Australia nor New Zealand full liberalisation of beef and sheep. It was not in our economic interests to do so. And neither Australia nor New Zealand had anything to offer in return for such a grand concession."
Eustice: "In my view the best clause of this treaty we have with Australia, is the final clause, because it does gives any UK govt...an unbridled right to terminate and renegotiate the FTA at any time with just six months notice." Extraordinary stuff.
Eustice: "The UK went into this negotiation holding the strongest hand, the best cards but at some point in early summer 2021, the then Trade Secretary [Truss] took a decision to set an arbitrary target to conclude it by G7- from that moment we were on the backfoot."
Eustice: "In fact at one point the then Trade Secretary [Truss] asked her opposite number in Australia what he would need in order to conclude an agreement by G7, and of course he then set out his terms which eventually shaped the deal. We must never repeat that mistake."
Eustice says the government cannot and must not make this mistake again with CPTPP- even if it takes a decade.
Eustice damning about Truss' performance as Trade Secretary throughout the deal and Department of Trade more generally. Bear in mind this is especially wounding given it's one of the only genuinely new post-Brexit deals we've signed. And Eustice was a Brexiter.
Eustice also attacked Dept of Trade's senior leadership: "Crawford Falconer, currently interim Permanent Secretary is not fit for that position...his approach always was to internalise Australian demands often when against UK interests, advice invariably to retreat/concede..."
The EU customs union is avoided by Norway and Switzerland, even though they are both part of the Schengen Area and have to accept free movement of labour. That would suggest that the customs union is more controversial than free movement. However, Turkey has a customs union with the EU even though Turkey is not even remotely close to any other kind of European integration.
Currently we have absolutely no control, so it would be no change in that respect. That’s the problem with leaving and then discovering that leaving was not such a good idea…
Fmr Environment Sec George Eustice has spoken about the post-Brexit UK/Australia trade deal in the Commons. He says now no longer a minister: "I no longer have to put such a positive gloss on what was agreed...the Australia deal is not actually a very good trade deal for the UK."
What we have seen is the equivalent of having a wafer-thin majority for Remain and joining the euro as a result, because of course a 52% vote for Remain would be a glorious victory and clear evidence that we all want to join the euro.
It is said that because the majority to leave was so slim, some concessions should have been made to the disappointed Remainers. A "soft" Brexit should have been negotiated, the terms of which should have involved the UK remaining in the Customs Union.
So imagine this: the result was 52:48 to remain. To accommodate the disappointment of the Leavers a "soft" remain should have been negotiated - one where the UK would remain in the EU but leave the Customs Union. Would that have flown? Of course not, because membership of the EU requires membership of the Customs Union. EU membership without it is not possible.
There is no justification for a soft Brexit any more than there would be for a soft Remain in my analogy.
There's a far simpler way to solve the Irish problem - the reunification of Ireland.
So imagine this: the result was 52:48 to remain. To accommodate the disappointment of the Leavers a "soft" remain should have been negotiated - one where the UK would remain in the EU but leave the Customs Union. Would that have flown? Of course not, because membership of the EU requires membership of the Customs Union. EU membership without it is not possible.
There's a far simpler way to solve the Irish problem - the reunification of Ireland.
I agree the solution isn't possible, so what's the point of even suggesting it as a possibility? I would personally have been OK with the UK government continuing to resist the moves towards more political union and a European army, and if that wasn't successful then starting to support a "two-speed Europe" where an outer ring of countries could adopt the economic but not the political bit. But instead the baby got thrown out with the bathwater.
I also agree that reunification of Ireland is a way out of this problem. The Unionists should be careful what they wish for, as their behaviour makes their worst outcome more likely.
In practice, the UK would have a significant say, just as Turkey does. The issue is not the customs union, but the fiscal union: without being part of the EU VAT area, the customs border still has to exist.
This is why Gibraltar and Spain maintained customs controls pre-Brexit, even though Gibraltar was part of the Customs Union. The controls only existed for fiscal purposes, which is why goods were allowed to be exported through the La Linea commercial gate.
Far easier said than done. That's akin to suggesting the ROI should by default leave the European Union. Very unlikely though as like many minor economies they do very well out of the EU.
Which doesn't, in itself, negate the possibility of getting opt-outs and concessions during the negotiations (as unlikely as we would be to actually receive them).
I know it isn't possible. I was trying to draw an analogy between being "slightly in" (i.e. leaving the EU but remaining in the CU) to appease disappointed Remainers and being "slightly out" (i.e. remaining in the EU but leaving the CU) to appease disappointed Leavers. Each is equally ludicrous. If the result had been 52:48 to remain, Mr Cameron would have appeared on the steps on No 10, beaming and smiling, saying "that's it, the people have spoken, the issue is settled, on we go." There would have been no appeasement to the 16m disappointed leavers and our membership would have continued unaltered. So quite why there should be such an accommodation for disappointed remainers is a puzzle.
Remaining in the CU would entail complying with EU standards and trading agreements and sacrificing the UK's ability to strike its own deals. It is the antithesis of Brexit and since the UK would have lost the limited influence it had over these matters would be arguably worse than leaving.
But the EU does not have a fiscal union. It has a (partial) monetary union but taxes and public spending are a matter for individual member nations. The lack of a fiscal union is one of the biggest flaws of the euro.
Remaining in the CU would entail complying with EU standards and trading agreements and sacrificing the UK's ability to strike its own deals. It is the antithesis of Brexit and since the UK would have lost the limited influence it had over these matters would be arguably worse than leaving.
Remaining in the CU would entail complying with EU standards and trading agreements and sacrificing the UK's ability to strike its own deals. It is the antithesis of Brexit and since the UK would have lost the limited influence it had over these matters would be arguably worse than leaving.
The problem is that we're just not that important a player or market on the global stage - manufacturers basically design and make their products to meet the US and EU standards. However much we shout about being able to set our own standards, it's just not worth their while for manufacturers to start making things to another third standard - end result is that we have zero say in the standards anyway.
The rest of the world is moving towards having single global standards - only the UK has decided that being able to go our own way is a good idea. Just look at the usual suspects proclaiming that Apple won't have to use USB-C in the UK because we've not followed the EU rules - they're 100% wrong - Apple will move their global production to USB-C, they're following the biggest markets and their rules - it's not us - we will make the move at the same time as the EU - only we haven't had any say in whether that was the right decision.
Just look at the usual suspects proclaiming that Apple won't have to use USB-C in the UK because we've not followed the EU rules - they're 100% wrong - Apple will move their global production to USB-C, they're following the biggest markets and their rules - it's not us - we will make the move at the same time as the EU - only we haven't had any say in whether that was the right decision.
They are strictly correct in saying that Apple won't have to use USB-C in the UK (with the likely exception of Northern Ireland). It's just in practice they will do that anyway. Any other deviation from EU standards is likely to have similarly small impact in practice, but will make things worse for manufacturers and consumers in at least four ways:
Manufacturers will have to do extra paperwork to obtain UK certification, even if the relevant UK standards are exactly the same as the EU.
If the UK decides to set a new standard but it's possible for the same product to meet standards in all its markets, then the supplier will have extra costs to demonstrate compliance to the new standard, or even to re-design the product to meet it.
If the UK decides to mandate something that's incompatible with EU standards, requiring micro-USB for example, then manufacturers will have to produce an incompatible product in small quantities for the UK market only.
If the UK decides to change its standards unilaterally at some time in the future, then manufacturers have to go through some or all of the above again.
In each case the manufacturer faces extra costs. Either these will be passed on directly to UK consumers, or they will choose to abandon the UK market, leaving consumers with reduced choice and probably paying more to the remaining suppliers. Like several other things to do with Brexit, this is a question of giving up real and practical benefits for the sake of some freedom to do something, which if it's ever actually done makes things even worse.
I know it isn't possible. I was trying to draw an analogy between being "slightly in" (i.e. leaving the EU but remaining in the CU) to appease disappointed Remainers and being "slightly out" (i.e. remaining in the EU but leaving the CU) to appease disappointed Leavers. Each is equally ludicrous. If the result had been 52:48 to remain, Mr Cameron would have appeared on the steps on No 10, beaming and smiling, saying "that's it, the people have spoken, the issue is settled, on we go." There would have been no appeasement to the 16m disappointed leavers and our membership would have continued unaltered. So quite why there should be such an accommodation for disappointed remainers is a puzzle.
I'd actually suggest that even the most narrow of remain wins would have set us on the path to closer integration with the EU. I think its been said on here already but retaining CU membership received the most votes in the indicative voting during the last few weeks of the Teresa May fiasco.
In addition to the detailed reply from edwin_m, a manufacturer may offer a more limited range of products in the U.K. compared to in other markets. So may for example only offer the basic model in a range rather than a wider range of models. Plus any new products may be made available at a later time compared to elsewhere.
In addition to the detailed reply from edwin_m, a manufacturer may offer a more limited range of products in the U.K. compared to in other markets. So may for example only offer the basic model in a range rather than a wider range of models. Plus any new products may be made available at a later time compared to elsewhere.
Apparently it's less of an issue (for the time being), the Government has decided to delay UKCA for another two years. So we'll be operating under EU CE markings for at least that long.
The deadline for when businesses need to use the UKCA mark has been extended.
You can continue to use the CE marking and reversed epsilon marking on the GB market until 31 December 2024.
Apparently it's less of an issue (for the time being), the Government has decided to delay UKCA for another two years. So we'll be operating under EU CE markings for at least that long.
What a surprise, so all the bluster about the so called importance of our sovereign right to set our own standards and it’s so important that it’s delayed for (at least) two more years…
Even so, the UKCA mark looks to be being slapped on lots of products right next to the CE mark.
I'm having major issues at work due to the UKCA marking. One company has told us today they are no longer able to sell their products to us due to not being able to get their UKCA through in time. I've had to tell them of this recent extension, and am awaiting to hear back. But it's just chaos in the government. Companies do not know if they are coming or going and if they don't do tons of work in the UK they are simply leaving the UK market completely - it's just not worth the extra red tape
I'm having major issues at work due to the UKCA marking. One company has told us today they are no longer able to sell their products to us due to not being able to get their UKCA through in time. I've had to tell them of this recent extension, and am awaiting to hear back. But it's just chaos in the government. Companies do not know if they are coming or going and if they don't do tons of work in the UK they are simply leaving the UK market completely - it's just not worth the extra red tape
Again, I’m not surprised. The ‘red tape’ costs money and more importantly, time, which in turn means more costs. Thus likely destroying any small profit margin…
Remaining in the CU would entail complying with EU standards and trading agreements and sacrificing the UK's ability to strike its own deals. It is the antithesis of Brexit and since the UK would have lost the limited influence it had over these matters would be arguably worse than leaving.
The problem is that we're just not that important a player or market on the global stage - manufacturers basically design and make their products to meet the US and EU standards. However much we shout about being able to set our own standards, it's just not worth their while for manufacturers to start making things to another third standard - end result is that we have zero say in the standards anyway.
The rest of the world is moving towards having single global standards - only the UK has decided that being able to go our own way is a good idea. Just look at the usual suspects proclaiming that Apple won't have to use USB-C in the UK because we've not followed the EU rules - they're 100% wrong - Apple will move their global production to USB-C, they're following the biggest markets and their rules - it's not us - we will make the move at the same time as the EU - only we haven't had any say in whether that was the right decision.
The really daft thing about all this is that British Standards are the basis of a substantial proportion of the EN standards that we now somehow want to drop.
Short memories of how we wrote laws adopted by the EU that somehow they are now 'imposing' on us!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'm having major issues at work due to the UKCA marking. One company has told us today they are no longer able to sell their products to us due to not being able to get their UKCA through in time. I've had to tell them of this recent extension, and am awaiting to hear back. But it's just chaos in the government. Companies do not know if they are coming or going and if they don't do tons of work in the UK they are simply leaving the UK market completely - it's just not worth the extra red tape
European manufacturers are happy to put on a three-pin plug to sell here. So, our manufacturers should be happy to put a Europlug on their products to sell overseas. All the talk of standards is just hogwash to keep a lot of civil servants in work.
European manufacturers are happy to put on a three-pin plug to sell here. So, our manufacturers should be happy to put a Europlug on their products to sell overseas. All the talk of standards is just hogwash to keep a lot of civil servants in work.
European manufacturers are happy to put on a three-pin plug to sell here. So, our manufacturers should be happy to put a Europlug on their products to sell overseas.
Sorry, but your post is complete nonsense. It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about - standards go so much further than what kind of plug a device is fitted with.
European manufacturers are happy to put on a three-pin plug to sell here. So, our manufacturers should be happy to put a Europlug on their products to sell overseas. All the talk of standards is just hogwash to keep a lot of civil servants in work.
It is said that because the majority to leave was so slim, some concessions should have been made to the disappointed Remainers. A "soft" Brexit should have been negotiated, the terms of which should have involved the UK remaining in the Customs Union.
So imagine this: the result was 52:48 to remain. To accommodate the disappointment of the Leavers a "soft" remain should have been negotiated - one where the UK would remain in the EU but leave the Customs Union. Would that have flown? Of course not, because membership of the EU requires membership of the Customs Union. EU membership without it is not possible.
A "soft" remain would involve leaving things as they were, as we were in a "soft remain" state already. We were out of Schengen, and out of the euro. Thus concessions had already been made to eurosceptics, even before Brexit.
Hard Brexit should have required an overwhelming majority, or alternatively, a majority for a "hard" solution in a second "what sort of Brexit do you want?" referendum.
Also, you can be in the Customs Union without being in the EU. Even Turkey is, according to one poster. If Erdogan's Turkey can manage it, I'm sure we can!
And would the unionists be happy with that? Solutions to the Irish problem need to keep both unionists and republicans happy. We had something approaching that from 1998 to 2019, before Brexit made things more difficult.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I know it isn't possible. I was trying to draw an analogy between being "slightly in" (i.e. leaving the EU but remaining in the CU) to appease disappointed Remainers and being "slightly out" (i.e. remaining in the EU but leaving the CU) to appease disappointed Leavers. Each is equally ludicrous. If the result had been 52:48 to remain, Mr Cameron would have appeared on the steps on No 10, beaming and smiling, saying "that's it, the people have spoken, the issue is settled, on we go." There would have been no appeasement to the 16m disappointed leavers and our membership would have continued unaltered. So quite why there should be such an accommodation for disappointed remainers is a puzzle.
Remaining in the CU would entail complying with EU standards and trading agreements and sacrificing the UK's ability to strike its own deals. It is the antithesis of Brexit and since the UK would have lost the limited influence it had over these matters would be arguably worse than leaving.
I'm sure it wouldn't. The benefits due to easier trade within the geographically-closest part of the world (continental Europe) and less bureaucracy would I am sure outweigh this so-called disadvantage.
Hancock is not the problem right now, in late 2022. Anyone who is focusing on him is actually serving the current government, who can maybe get away with outrageous things while we are all focused on the most evil man in the UK, Mr Hancock.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.theguardian.com
www.gov.uk
