Brexit process

[Little John]

They are two separate countries. So they have and will continue to have a border. So what?

The only pertinent question is how hard the border needs to be and that is a political issue determined by our political classes for reasons that have got precisely F--k all to do with technicalities.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10408 ... xit-latest

THE EUROPEAN Union could introduce outrageous visa costs of £52.60 for British holidaymakers hoping to travel to Europe in the event of a no-deal Brexit as the final stage of negotiations looms.

British holidaymakers hoping to travel to Spain, Greece, Italy and other destinations within the bloc could be charged for the pleasure post-Brexit.

A no-deal scenario could mean Brits will be forced to fork out £52.60 per adult and £30.70 per child aged 6-12 for a Schengen entry permit, which allows access to EU countries for 90-days.

The visa application form is set to inconvenience holidaymakers with a staggering 37 questions that “must be filled in by the applicant with relevant information.�

Result!!!! Less CO2 emissions produced by planes and other transport, big boost for UK holiday destinations, improving the economies of many parts of the UK which have suffered economically.

More brexit please.

[stumuz1]

]As for the EU. They have played Dublin like a fiddle. The checks can be done away from the border, as the French do. The French make unannounced visits to shops, market stalls, distribution warehouses or anyone who sells food to check origin, quality, descriptions. And yet the EU says this cannot be done for a tiny amount of trade north -south in Ireland.

Okay, are these kind of checks enough though? Not just for food, but for all products where rules and regulations can be expected to drift. 20 years down the line, after the UK has chosen not to mirror all future EU rules and has many unilateral trade deals, importing all manner of things (with/without tariffs) not compliant with EU rules, it seems impossible.

But that was the whole point of the referendum. We are packing our our bags and heading out to the big wide world. EU rules will be for the EU, We can align if we want, if it is our interests, or we can make our own rules instead.

There will be no physical border in Ireland. First because the UK have said there won't. Second, Roi won't enforce one because it does not fit with their victim narrative.

Those two points don't seem to address how two countries with different rules and different tariffs can actually avoid a border though.

I don't quite get your point here. Countries have borders, always will. If you mean Roi then I think we have agreed its a false peril promulgated by the EU commission to cause trouble.
If you mean other countries, we do that everyday.
All the UK is doing by leaving with no deal will be to create another market

[kenneal - lagger]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10408 ... xit-latest

THE EUROPEAN Union could introduce outrageous visa costs of £52.60 for British holidaymakers hoping to travel to Europe in the event of a no-deal Brexit as the final stage of negotiations looms.

British holidaymakers hoping to travel to Spain, Greece, Italy and other destinations within the bloc could be charged for the pleasure post-Brexit.

A no-deal scenario could mean Brits will be forced to fork out £52.60 per adult and £30.70 per child aged 6-12 for a Schengen entry permit, which allows access to EU countries for 90-days.

The visa application form is set to inconvenience holidaymakers with a staggering 37 questions that “must be filled in by the applicant with relevant information.�

Result!!!! Less CO2 emissions produced by planes and other transport, big boost for UK holiday destinations, improving the economies of many parts of the UK which have suffered economically.

More brexit please.

I couldn't agree more!! But I can't see Greece, Italy or Spain taking a hit on their tourism revenues happily. If France and Germany insist on a tariff then they will have to pay off the Med countries that lose out and I can't see them wanting to do that.

[Mark]

If, for sake of argument, the UK started importing chlorinated chicken (or adopted the practice ourselves), then wouldn't there have to be a hard border to ensure such products couldn't enter EU? How else could the EU ensure no such chicken got into their market?

Well, If we start importing or producing chlorinated chicken then that will be our decision. A sovereign parliament making laws that if you don't like them, you can vote them out.

Sounds good in theory..., however, in practice a government wouldn't be voted out on something like this....
Consider fracking - this government has done everything it can to push it through, against the majority (I think) of public opinion....

The EU, love them or hate them, have generally been a force for good on environmental matters, worker protection, consumer protection etc.

Will the UK follow the same path post Brexit ?
Or will we just cosy up to the US, with their fracking, GMO, chlorinated chickens etc. etc.

[vtsnowedin]

....
.....
Will the UK follow the same path post Brexit ?
Or will we just cosy up to the US, with their fracking, GMO, chlorinated chickens etc. etc.

You do realize that there are producers in the US that are producing, free range ,antibiotic free, non GMO , non chlorinated chickens , as well as other species,? Beyond a proper level of label accuracy enforcement I think you are free to buy whatever level of food production you chose. Just don't expect that the "Ah natural" food will cost less then the factory production.

[fuzzy]

Also chlorinated chicken, just means washed skins to reduce pathogens. The bad rap in the EU is just to protect local suppliers. Chickens almost everywhere have a vile life. If you treat one well until it no longer lays eggs, it is way too old to eat.

[stumuz1]

Sounds good in theory..., however, in practice a government wouldn't be voted out on something like this....
Consider fracking - this government has done everything it can to push it through, against the majority (I think) of public opinion....

The EU, love them or hate them, have generally been a force for good on environmental matters, worker protection, consumer protection etc.

Will the UK follow the same path post Brexit ?
Or will we just cosy up to the US, with their fracking, GMO, chlorinated chickens etc. etc.

First, we will leave the debate whether the have ['b]generally[/b] been a force for good on environmental matters, worker protection, consumer protection etc' for another time

But on the fracking front, It's not the EU that will stop fracking in England but old fashioned Adam Smith self interest. Let's take the example of two farmer Jones's.

First American farmer Jones allows fracking on his remote farm and will keep or share in a good chunk of the profits. As he owns the land to the centre of the earth.

English farmer Jones allows fracking on his farm (not that remote)and will NOT keep or share in a good chunk of the profits. As the Crown owns the land to the centre of the earth, the Queen can legally keep the dosh.

As most peoples wealth is tied up in their homes you will see huge protests a la Lancashire.

As for chlorinated chicken. Imagine the death and destruction if we allowed chlorinated drinking water...........

[vtsnowedin]

...........
First American farmer Jones allows fracking on his remote farm and will keep or share in a good chunk of the profits. As he owns the land to the centre of the earth.

English farmer Jones allows fracking on his farm (not that remote)and will NOT keep or share in a good chunk of the profits. As the Crown owns the land to the centre of the earth, the Queen can legally keep the dosh.
............

Perhaps the crown will have to share some of the "dosh" to get it out of the ground and the remaining share in the coffers?

[stumuz1]

Perhaps the crown will have to share some of the "dosh" to get it out of the ground and the remaining share in the coffers?

Thousand years of Crown estates suggests otherwise!

Although to be fair they give generous incentives to get stuff out of the ground, North sea oil etc.

However, constitutional convention has it that the Crown acts in the interests of subjects, so angry householders en masse protesting fracking in their area will get the attention of the Crown quite quickly.

[Mark]

But on the fracking front, It's not the EU that will stop fracking in England but old fashioned Adam Smith self interest.

The 'drill baby drill', free market approach has certainly given US farmer Jones economic benefits - the loser, as always is the climate, groundwater contamination, the local environment etc... Meanwhile EU farmer Jones has certainly been constrained by all those pesky Environmental Directives, planning regulations, carbon taxes etc...., but on the up side, it's given space for a healthy and vibrant renewables sector to develop and grow...

Which way for the UK in the future....??

[stumuz1]

The 'drill baby drill', free market approach has certainly given US farmer Jones economic benefits - the loser, as always is the climate, groundwater contamination, the local environment etc...

Agree, however all energy production is polluting and damaging in some way. It is all a matter of degree.

Meanwhile EU farmer Jones has certainly been constrained by all those pesky Environmental Directives, planning regulations, carbon taxes etc...., but on the up side, it's given space for a healthy and vibrant renewables sector to develop and grow...

No, all those Environmental Directives, planning regulations, carbon taxes, allow fracking. It is the people power that has stopped it. Germany has had a large fracking industry since 1975. It was a founding member of the EU (Then EC).

Which way for the UK in the future....?

Don't know. Discussion can be had. Personally I think domestic DC battery storage will be a game changer. When a house can home brew and keep its energy in a meaningful way, fossil fuels will take a nose dive.

[Mark]

Lords savage plans for post-Brexit chemical regulation:
https://www.endsreport.com/article/6136 ... regulation

The government’s failure to lay out a credible plan to regulate chemicals after Brexit is “highly troubling�, according to the House of Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee. In a brief, though deeply critical report released today, it urged Whitehall to get its act together urgently or face major disruption to the UK’s second largest manufacturing industry and the supply chains it heads. The government needs to set out how an independent regulatory framework would function, how it would collect information on chemicals, which agency would regulate chemicals and ensure that UK chemical businesses can still export after Brexit, said the committee. The report echoes many of the same criticisms levelled at DEFRA last week by the Chemical Business Association. There is unity between manufacturers, users and campaigners on the UK continuing to participate in the EU’s REACH regime, which has been reflected in the UK’s negotiating position with Brussels. But gaining this will not be easy: the regulation has no allowance for ‘associate membership’ as proposed by the prime minister. Brussels considers that leaving the single market automatically means leaving the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). “Although we welcome the government’s aim to remain part of the REACH system after Brexit, its negotiation red line on the UK's membership of the single market makes that highly unlikely. That means it urgently needs to be working on a Plan B, and that simply hasn't happened, which leaves the sector facing a huge cliff-edge on the day we leave the EU,� said committee chair Lord Teverson. Even if the associate membership was somehow obtained, the UK would only remain subject to REACH until the end of 2020. From then, or from April under a no-deal scenario, the UK would likely have to go it alone and how this would be handled remains unclear, according to the committee. “If associate membership of and ongoing participation in ECHA are not negotiated by exit day, a number of challenges arise,� the report said. As things stand, all REACH registrations will become invalid in the UK, alongside those made by UK companies in the EU-27, preventing trade and use of those chemicals.

DEFRA is drafting legislation to ensure that registrations for the UK market continue to be valid. However, DEFRA has not yet decided if it will automatically accept registrations made in the EU. Doing so without access to the underlying data on toxicity and other properties “could leave the UK open to legal challenges from companies wanting to use dangerous substances for which the government would not have full information to justify restrictions. If, instead, it requires chemical users to register substances here with equivalent levels of information to REACH, it could… be a massive financial and bureaucratic burden for UK companies,� the Green Alliance told the committee. DEFRA is currently building its own version of ECHA’s REACH database, at a cost of £5.8m. Populating it with the necessary data will not be straightforward. The committee has “serious doubts� that the government will be able to do so, partly as it depends on obtaining permission from the multiple parties that own the data. But when raised with the government, DEFRA permanent secretary Claire Moriarty told the committee: “That’s not something I am aware of.� DEFRA’s intention to ‘copy and paste’ ECHA’s REACH database, as laid out by environment minister Thérèse Coffey earlier this year, “is not credible�, the committee said. The plan is unlawful, as it would infringe copyright and database rights, even if done on a piecemeal basis. “In addition, we find it extremely concerning that it may not be possible to establish which of the existing REACH registrations originate from UK companies. We call on the government to set out the steps it is taking to resolve this issue,� the report added.

Coffey’s boss, environment secretary Michael Gove, advised the Lords that companies should take steps now to transfer their registrations to an only-representative or EU-based subsidiary. But Anita Lloyd, a director at law firm Squire Patton Boggs said that this was in fact legally impossible while the UK is a member state. Transfers after Brexit could take months to complete, with “serious ramifications down the supply chain and serious interruptions to the many billions of pounds’ worth of trade in chemicals between the UK and EU,� she added. Gabrielle Edwards, deputy director for chemicals, pesticides and hazardous waste at DEFRA acknowledged that there has been some suggestion that “some sort of mechanism� is needed to enable transfers but that it had not yet been put in place. She said that the UK has “very detailed plans� to set up a new chemicals regulation capacity to replace ECHA from March 2019. But to the Lords’ alarm, these have not been activated and there has been no clarification on which body will take on ECHA’s role. The way that chemical risk assessment would be conducted, alongside the transparency of its decision-making, is also unclear, the report noted.

The committee also addressed the cost to business of leaving REACH. The Chemicals Industry Association has put the bill in the UK and EU at £450m. Transferring or re-registering substances with ECHA could cost £200-1,500 per registration, according to the Green Alliance. The cost of administration would add to the bill, especially for some businesses that have hundreds of registrations. The government has still not said whether or not UK or EU-27 companies would be charged for registering with the new UK system, which the committee wants it to clarify urgently. If the UK ends up outside the REACH system, Coffey has pledged that the country would continue to be “pretty much aligned to REACH� – a “worryingly imprecise� term that could indicate lowered protections, said the Green Alliance. Manufacturing industry association EEF said that this offered little economic value. EEF’s head of climate and environment policy Roz Bulleid commented: “Government is making progress on preparing a post-Brexit regulatory regime and has listened to industry and other stakeholders calls for continuing close alignment with the EU. However, we would very much agree with the committee on the significance of this issue and would urge government to step up communication with its stakeholders around a no deal Brexit. Companies need more detail now on what that would entail and how they should be preparing.�

[stumuz1]

Only read the first paragraph then stopped reading, because of two fundamental mistakes.

Mark, you keep posting this guff.

I truly believe that you believe that chemical industry is stuffed under a no deal.

I truly believe it will not be.

May, i suggest that you contact Lisa Nandy MP. She spouts a lot of nonsense about planes not flying, Brexit morons not getting their fortnight in Benidorm yardy yardy.

The chemical industry is highly regulated. Will always be highly regulated.

Anyway off to France next week for preliminary meetings with French chemical firm at their expense for post brexit planning. I'll précis the meeting now.

"Nothing will change, the compounds you import from the UK are already REACH registered, you don't need an OR"

Thank you for your purchase order.

[Mark]

What I believe isn't important.

However, here's some more 'guff' from the Chemical Business Association, which represents 1,000s of jobs.....

Brexit plans for REACH unworkable, unsustainable and damaging, says industry:
https://www.endsreport.com/article/6133 ... s-industry

The government has no viable plan to regulate the chemicals industry following a no-deal Brexit, according to the Chemical Business Association (CBA). Its current proposals for would be hugely damaging, according to a letter sent by chief executive Peter Newport to DEFRA minister Thérèse Coffey on Wednesday. Newman wrote that the CBA “wholeheartedly supports� the government’s intention to gain a form of associate membership of the European Chemicals Agency. Negotiating this would allow UK registrants to maintain access to the toxicity data contained in the EU REACH database. The proposal was rejected firmly by the EU’s Brexit negotiators in June, although the final decision lies with the member states and MEPs. “However, we believe the government’s current intention to transpose the European Union’s REACH provisions into UK law in the event of a ‘no deal’ Brexit is unworkable, unsustainable, and will damage the chemical supply sector and many downstream UK manufacturing industries relying on chemicals for their products and processes,� he wrote. Three fifths of the UK’s chemical exports go to the EU, says the letter. It forms the largest export industry after the automotive sector, so any disruption to trade will have huge implications for the economy as a whole. Forcing companies to register the chemicals they manufacture or import under a wholly-domestic version of REACH will have huge ramifications for the sector, Newport argued. Although DEFRA is working on the creation of a UK chemicals database, the majority of British registrants do not own or have access to the data that would be needed to populate it. Most market participants pay to obtain data via substance information exchange forums (SIEFs). These band registrants of the same substance together, allowing them to avoid duplicating tests (particularly animal studies), prepare a joint lead registration dossier and agree on classification and labelling.

Most of the information is owned by European firms, the letter noted. Selling access to data to a third country is purely a commercial matter for the owners. Whatever deal is reached, or not, with the EU, they cannot be forced to disclose it, said Newport. The issue, “pointed out in several meetings with ministers and officials,� renders the government’s plan unworkable, the letter to Coffey states. If existing test data cannot be obtained, then “significantly higher levels of animal testing should be anticipated,� Newport warned. Alternative forms of testing may be appropriate in some cases, he noted. According to the European Chemicals Agency, UK companies have made 12,449 REACH registrations, 13% of the total and the second largest proportion after the German industry. They cover 5,749 substances. The combined cost of registration fees and data-sharing contributions already reaches into many millions of pounds. “Yet, in recent meetings, ministers have appeared indifferent to the further costs faced by chemical firms as a consequence of establishing the proposed UK REACH regime. Business simply cannot sustain the additional costs implicit in the government’s current hard brexit REACH proposals,� Coffey was told.

Furthermore, the two-year timescale for setting up a UK REACH system, gathering all the relevant testing data and studies is “unrealistic�, especially given the potential requirement for new testing to be undertaken. That alone could take 15 months, Newport said – and the EU REACH system has taken a decade to implement fully. Meanwhile, British industry is preparing for the worst by activating emergency plans, with some opening substantive operations in Ireland or the continent. European-owned firms are also repatriating products. Newport sent a separate letter to Lord Teverson, the chair of the House of Lords’ European Union Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, thanking him for pressing the issue of access to chemicals data. Coffey revealed the government’s intention to simply download ECHA’s database before the committee in the summer – a plan described as unlawful by its executive director Bjorn Hansen and the Chemicals Industry Association. Doing so would need to be agreed as part of a withdrawal agreement, they noted. The letters came a week after chemical consumers and manufacturers and campaigners were told that DEFRA’s technical notices for Brexit could be revised. Officials told a meeting of the Chemicals Stakeholder Forum that they could be changed in response to the identification of gaps, such as not mentioning SIEFs or how regulatory decisions would be reached. The two-year timeline was far too short, the forum heard, echoing Newport’s comments.