It would be wise to take any promises made by the current government with regard to the EU with a rather humongous pinch of salt at the moment.
The UK will shortly be trying to salvage as much of its trading and regulatory relationship with Europe as it can. I’d expect to see promises like this quietly dropped.
I don't think this lot actually care about the trading and regulatory relationship with Europe, at all. I can't figure out what is supposed to fill the place occupied by the EU. Which makes for an interesting decade, particularly if you have a business trading within the EU.
They signalled earlier that they are not going to align themselves with EU regulatory apparatus - this was to indicate to the EU that they were not going for the 'tight integration' approach, which is important because it was assumed by many this would be the UK position.
The UK is seeking to have an independent regulatory system, obviously, this means many things vis-a-vis relationships with the EU. Many products will naturally have to comply with regulations, just as any UK company selling kit in the US or Brazil has to align their products with those regimes.
But in reality, obviously, this will evolve given any specific advantages that might present themselves.
But it's also impossible to tell what is a 'negotiating posture' vs. what is their real, intended posture, and that's very much on purpose.
My bet is that the end result will be something like NAFTA/USMCA.
It’s possible of course, but ultimately so much business is conducted with Europe that UK businesses are still going to have to be in compliance with the majority of the regulatory regime - at least anybody who exports.
I imagine most companies will end up setting up EU-domiciled subsidiaries to minimise barriers, but who knows ultimately!
This lot does not even agree with itself about what it wants, or is deliberately making an effort to appear that way. One day the chancellor of the Exchequer (effectively n.2 in gov, the one with actual hands on the purse-string) says “screw alignment, we don’t need the EU, the Americans are our best friend”; the next the Prime Minister says “screw Americans, they are bullies, the EU is still our best friend”; and the chancellor goes “he’s right, I don’t know what I was thinking the other day”.
In the next 12 months, the public won’t be able to believe a single word coming from government that might involve (even tangentially) trade negotiations.
Very true, they're all winging it. It all seems to be coming from the evil genius Cummings who tells everyone from Johnson down what to think.
It's too disturbing to contemplate what the state of the establishment, civil service, judiciary and all the other checks and balances will be at the end of five years.
Most of their `rhetoric` was that they would leave the EU, so you can see how that momentum could run. But on results of promises and delivering the current government elected in December, seem to be on target.
But early days, let's see how that actually pans out, people saying one thing and not doing; That is `rhetoric`. Actually delivering it, a rare thing in today's times.
As for this Article 13 EU Law - not a bad one to not adopt as many a debate has extolled when the law was first mooted.
Is it just an easy low-hanging fruit to enable other less socially palatable laws to be ignored - not impossible at all, but without time we can only speculate from perspective.
I fear that if I voiced the opinion I hold of my dear government, I shall be voted down into oblivion for gratuitous use of colourfully explicit language, and rightfully so. The only comfort that is given me, is that this stain on European politics stands out slightly less for being in some equally abysmal company, which unfortunately is another source of pain all by itself. I wish our politicians were the only paragons of stupidity and corruption, so that the European community as a whole would put them in their place. Alas, we're not the only flower in the bunch that stinks.
It seems the most prominent use the EU is regularly put to, is as a scapegoat to blame for bad laws. These are sponsored and promoted by cabals of national governments on the European level, in order to shirk their responsibility to their sovereigns, the national voters.
The current UK government's proposals for an "online harms" regulator will be far, far, far more harmful than Article 13 would ever be.
They're vague, undefined, create criminal penalties, don't understand what harms are, create an incentive to shut down speech on the basis of risk management and will be enforced entirely arbitrarily.
A good move, probably one of the more palatable EU laws that will if dropped, go down well politicaly with the people. Equally, it enables the UK to use it as a presedence to drift away from other EU rules, some maybe less politicaly palatable with the populus.
So on many levels, a very cunning move and certainly opens up EU trade negotiations to cater for divergance by grabbing a low hanging fruit.
But will this effect trade with the EU and trade deals - not that much, if at all.
Can anybody name a UK company that this law effects that solely or majority trades with the EU? Asking as this seems more about content and most/near all content providers are global and would be versed in regional variations on regulations.
I'm trying to find out about other EU countries' implementation, but so far it looks no one's doing much.
Germany has a proposal that I doubt will go anywhere, but who knows, maybe they will, judging by their ignorance of anything Internet related.
Other countries don't seem to have any information available.
I seriously hope Eastern European leaders aren't dumb enough to implement something that would send their online tech sectors to the grave... But again, who knows
That's a mischievous way to describe what happened here - in fact the UK said that as it was leaving, it would simply vote with the majority on issues, so it didn't not influence the vote.
Because people and countries are permitted to talk to each other before a vote - especially so in legislatures where votes are not made in a secret ballot - and therefore the majority is usually known before the vote.
this seems unfair given that after invoking Article 50 the UK agreed to vote with the majority in Council to minimise disruption (while still permitting quorum)
More like they said they wanted to get off the elevator June 23, 2016 and the other people on the elevator prevented them from getting off one way or another for 1,317 days until Jan 31, 2020.
Thank you UK. I hope UK does a comprehensive review of all EU regulations have made it harder to do business in UK. Hope things like GDPR goes away too.
If you want to export/import out of the country then you're going to need to follow all EU guidelines anyway. So all the UK has done is remove itself from the decision making process of rules businesses still have to operate under.
> If you want to export/import out of the country then you're going to need to follow all EU guidelines anyway.
Nonsense, the EU is just one of many potential trade partners and it does business with plenty of exporters who aren't forced to operate under EU rules.
GDPR is, I hope, safe. Various politicians have said it's staying -- YMMV in how much score to place in that. It's reasonable, clear and ICO is one of the better regulators. It certainly doesn't make it harder to do business in the UK. Leaving the EU does that, as effectively as being on the receiving end of international sanctions.
It is a questionable cause, as low UK-EU business optimism will not result in international sanctions. It is generally considered good etiquette to have cited something credible in the first instance, before blithely demanding proof of others.
You're making the outlandish claim that 'leaving the EU is like having sanctions' - the burden is entirely on you to 'prove it'.
Since most nations 'outside the EU' like Norway, Switzerland, or even Canada, the US, Australia are not comparable to 'being sanctioned' I suggest you're going to have a hard time making your case.
We aren't being given even the prospect of a trading relationship like Canada, Switzerland or Norway as they would require flexibility on one or other of the UK's immovable points. That's been clearly shown for years now, ever since Michel Barnier put out his very simple slide showing the trading relationship options.
Both the USA and Australia already have trade deals with the EU. The UK does not, and will not for probably years. International negotiation isn't a simple weekend thing like the Tory party keep trying to persuade the ever-gullible UK electorate.
So that's potentially years with nothing. WTO rules. Effectively self-sanctioning to a position far worse than now, and placing a severe cap on potential. Businesses with sense, or heavy EU dependency will leave, in droves. I would expect Toyota and possibly BMW to be probable early exits.
We could, I suppose, get a miracle of a fast agreement, but 26 nations have power of veto, and GB's negotiating team has not shown anything resembling flexibility or any apparent clue how negotiating works.
Trading on WTO terms is not like 'having sanctions'.
The EU and UK will continue to trade on some kind of terms on most goods and services until a deal is worked out. It will take longer than one year, but the UK-imposed 'deadline' is highly rational, and good for both sides, because nothing ever happens on the 'difficult issues' until both sides are up against a wall and are forced to 'show their cards'.
The 'one-year' milestone people should understand not as the point wherein negotiations end, but rather when the hard negotiation begins.
They will keep the status quo until that wrestling match is done.
In comparison to being in the single market, yes it is. At moment of EU exit we lose ALL trade arrangements as all we currently have are under the auspices of the EU. That would, for a couple of years until treaties were getting signed, put us in a worse position than every WTO member and observer.
In the first instance NO countries trade solely on WTO default terms. None. Every country has better than WTO arrangements with someone, even North Korea who aren't even in the WTO. Perhaps their local neighbours and major trade partners, even if they don't necessarily have a deal with the EU (or China or USA).
On WTO terms we'd need to negotiate tariff agreements with the WTO on potentially hundreds of categories of products which is going to take at least as long as an EU-UK treaty. As frequently reported, goods and services to and from the EU will be subject to import duties. For any of the numerous industries where that may happen multiple times, e.g. car manufacture, the effect would be disastrous.
Second we'll lose all trade agreements with other nations that we have had as a result of being within the EU, e.g. with Canada, the US, South Korea, etc, etc. So we'll have no improved relationship with anyone at all. It remains to be seen if claims of interim arrangements are anything other than empty rhetoric, so we still potentially face that cliff edge in Dec 2020.
Third we'd lose the unrestricted single market right to provide services (including financial) across the EU without discrimination and fall back to only WTO terms. That's likely to completely change viability of numerous successful UK businesses. Including some of the largest.
Heh. The UK is currently in the process of imposing absolutely massive trade barriers between itself and its largest overseas market. I think perhaps the last place you’d want to look for guidance would be that.
Bear in mind that the UK will still essentially have to comply with things like GDPR and other European regulation if it wishes to continue doing business in Europe - particularly in the services sector.
"The UK was among 19 nations that initially supported the law."
That's quite rich, ain't it? It's OK, after Brexit UK will become a colony of US anyway since they will rapidly do bi trading deals and implement US style anyway. You know, the style that allowed stuff to halt for 20 years because Disney want it in 1999.
The idea kind of reminds me of Yahoo's Alibaba investment. It was successful. So successful that, in the end, it completely negated anything else that was going on at Yahoo.
You could make a fun argument that colonizing America had a similar kind of effect on Britain.
And you are aware that US still want Kim Dotcom to be extradited to US for copyright infringement for stuff he didn't do it, just because he pissed off Disney with his services, right? I mean a dude who never set foot on US, never did business with any Americans is higher on DoJ list just because Disney said so.
Well, that and running a "file sharing service" as a cover for one of the largest organized commercial piracy services on the Internet, a fact the DOJ was able to establish in Schmitz's own words from the contents of mails he and his team exchanged --- which you can read for yourself in the long-public indictment.
But I'm sure Donald Duck and Jafar from Alladin don't like him much either.
The UK will shortly be trying to salvage as much of its trading and regulatory relationship with Europe as it can. I’d expect to see promises like this quietly dropped.