MinBane

Helt ute av sporet (Okumala ekigwo okulyaku kya okuziga)

Archive for the tag “Ed Miliband”

Brexit: Sir Vincent Cable letter to David Davis on “his extraordinary claim I should sack Lib Dem MEP Cathrine Bearder for doing her job” (13.10.2017)

Advertisements

Post-Brexit Costumes Implications could be dire for the UK, as revealed in Irish Parliament Draft Report of September 2017!

The Republic of Ireland Parliament has started their works and their initial searching for solutions Post-Brexit. This September Draft report from the Irish Parliament is more structured and more explained than any of the ones offered the public from the United Kingdom counterparts. The Irish government clearly are open within their troubles and possible hurdles in the new state between Republic of Ireland as a Member State in the European Union and United Kingdom on the outside. This will significantly change the prospects of trade, movements of goods and direct costumes operations within Ireland and in the United Kingdom. The Brexit agreement between the EU and UK will be vital to the borders and trade between the neighbor states.

Out of the report, this is for me, the vital quotes, that significantly says what it means for both parties. They are really explaining clearly the impact and being direct in the problems that are coming with Brexit. Something certainly the British should look into, if they wants to have good trade and movement of goods to and from Ireland. This will not happen as it is done today, since the United Kingdom will need new regulations and new sorts of security checks. Since they are not a member state and in the new system need to follow other protocols of movement than of today.

Brexit implication:

There are two distinct processes in the e-manifest procedure, depending on whether the goods are non-union or union goods. Currently goods coming from the UK are union goods and, while a manifest is required for the enforcement of national prohibitions and restrictions, there are no systematic controls imposed on these goods. However, post Brexit these goods will be non-union goods and as a result the manifest will be fully processed and the goods in question will not be released until all customs formalities have been completed” (Oireacthas, P: 8, 2017).

Goods to the UK:

Goods to be exported to the UK will need to be presented to customs at the customs office of exit11 and be made available for examination if required. This extra layer of formalities for movements that are currently intra-union movements will not only place a considerable administrative burden on traders it will also have a negative impact on trade flows and delay the release of goods” (Oireacthas, P: 10, 2017).

Goods passing through UK:

Under transit, it is possible for goods to proceed directly to an inland location before customs formalities need to be completed. Where a trader wishes to move goods arriving from or through the UK directly to their premises they will need to be approved as an authorised consignee and also have the appropriate premises approved as a Temporary Storage facility as the goods will have the status of non-union goods. Where traders are not approved as authorised consignees then those goods declared for the transit procedure would be required to be presented at the declared customs office of destination for control purposes and in order to end the transit procedure. This in effect would require that current Revenue offices not assigned the function of a customs office of destination in NCTS would need to be assigned that status and be in a position to provide suitable examination facilities where necessary controls can be performed. Providing suitable facilities and associated human resources may prove difficult for Revenue” (Oireacthas, P: 13-14, 2017).

If this isn’t seen as important for the British, the United Kingdom and their possible trading operations with Ireland and the whole European Union. Than they better come up with solutions. If not they have to trade Yorkshire Tea with themselves and Tetley can be sold just within the Kingdom. Since it will be expensive with routine checks and costumes arrangements to fix the new hurdles for people who orders their stocks into their shops. They rather pick up another brand with similar flavor of their tea, than ordering the famous British tea suppliers. Why take Lipton, when you can order a French Tea without any problems and time consuming costumes and tax-operation. This is what that can appear, as well as sudden extra time in storage and other new need of expenses. That will mean the costumers will have to pay the extra prices for the same product, as well as pay for the added time it takes before the products hit the market.

This is just between Ireland and the United Kingdom. If you we’re too consider all member states of the Union, you know the issue becomes more dire for the United Kingdom. That these issues will hit their trading partners, the producers and the ones that produced and exported products for decades. Will be hit or have to become more expensive abroad, this may even make the consumers in outside markets pick other products than the British. Why pay more for British, when the French has a similar tasting product? Why buy an extra expensive British Cheese, when the Belgian one taste as good?

So if the Costumes and added taxes between UK and EU Members States grows, that will make the products less worth as it will be more luxurious and less of common product in the shelves. Also, that the time consuming import together with the cost of transit, manifests and checks of the products. Will also hurt the bottom-line and the profitability of imports from British producers. This should worry all producers and factory made product-lines that is made for exports. The Irish government has clearly outlined the issues and are striking factors for simple movement of goods between the states. It might not become so hard, but the possibility is still there. Peace.

Reference:

Oireacthas – ‘Brexit and the consequences for Irish Customs – DRAFT’ (September 2017)

UK Statistics Authority Chairman Sir David Norgrove letter to Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson: “On his clear misuse of statistics” (17.09.2017)

Opinion: Boris Johnson shows his ‘Alternative Reality’ concerning Brexit!

Boris Johnson, the writer, the journalist and who turned politician. The now Foreign Secretary of United Kingdom in the Conservative-Democratic Unionist Party (Tories-DUP) Government. Clearly, he has his own marbles and his own vision. As it sparkles on the night sky like stars. He thinks it shines and is the reason for light hitting mother earth, not that the light is the reflection and sun-light shining on the stars and moons to reflect back on mother earth. It is the same way I feel while reading the The Daily Telegraph, the article he written in prospects of gaining support for his vision.

Boris Johnson or from now on Bojo, has his own vision, certainly not one of a kind. This article could have been written by any maverick inside the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). The only thing making it difference isn’t the nationalist stance, but more on the economic foundation and self belief, that the EU negotiations will benefit the UK. He has to believe it, since his career needs it. Bojo are clearly trying to sell a story and tries to deflect. Even with lies and submission of “we will fix it in the end, please trust us”.

Bojo words speaks best for themselves, but if Europeans had any hope of a deep insights to the negotiations or understanding of the Tories policy considering Brexit. There is no insights that we didn’t know. Because the UK thinks they can walk-away without any hurt or damage. That the future will be better and without any deep consequence, therefore, another world of alternative reality. Nearly like a Tories fan-fiction. Fixated in the ideals of leaving, breathing and winning, without any actions and any consequences.

If we had been asked to design the EU ourselves with a blank sheet of paper we would have nothing like the body that exists today. We tried so often to frustrate it. I was there at the Antibes ecofin when British officials made a gallant attempt to strangle the euro at birth with a project called the hard ecu. I was there when they ambushed Margaret Thatcher at the Rome summit with conclusions that the British thought had been explicitly rejected. I remember how we kept trying to stop this or that – we rejected the very notion of political union; we tried to stop the expansion of majority voting. And I remember the mantra of EU officials – Britain objects, Britain protests – but in the end she always signs up” (Johnson, 2017).

We are not going to dismantle the corpus of EU law on exit. On the contrary the objective of the repeal bill is to incorporate it. Our systems of standards will remain absolutely flush with the rest of the EU. We would not expect to pay for access to their markets any more than they would expect to pay for access to ours. And yes – once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly 350m per week. It would be a fine thing as many of us have pointed out if a lot of that money went on the NHS, provided we use that cash injection to modernise and make the most of new technology” (Johnson, 2017).

If we organise, if we plan, if we build the homes and the infrastructure we need, if we give our young people the skills and the confidence that they could so easily acquire – then we can also ensure that this country is not just the place where everyone wants to come and live – but the place with the highest standard of living, with the per capita GDP, the productivity and the quality of life that we deserve. That means insisting on a culture that is pro-business and pro-enterprise, but one that is so dynamic that fat cats can no longer sit unpunished in their jobs when they let everyone down” (Johnson, 2017).

It is like he expected the EU only to benefit the UK. Not like it was a genuine partnership between all Member States. Some laws and regulations are made to fit more the Netherlands, other fixed for Spain. This is how agreements are being built. Just like UK has gotten specialized grants for agriculture, roads and other projects in Wales. Not because the Polish or Germans wants to pay directly for the development of Cardiff or Swansea, but they do, as a part of the EU. It’s like the whole article tried to forget that part and forget the lost funding of Universities and Colleges by EU grants and funds. But, hey the UK don’t need that.

Than he had to reveal a lie, a fixed number to sound brash, a loud and high voiced 350 million pounds a week. Not like the sums that it cost for trading, being a member and also single market opportunity has its advantages, that is why the Tories are positive for staying it and not wanting to leave that part of the union. As part of the free-trade paradigm. Because the British knows they need to trade with the EU and their Financial Institutions are benefiting from it. That he has to use an artificial high number to say, we get wealthy if we leave and can spend it on the sick. Is just playing pitiful politics with businesses and livelihood. Not that he has a single solution or program to fix the ceasing of dozens bilateral agreements. That is something David Davis and other knuckleheads can fix.

So as the months are going, he suddenly says actually “If we plan….” like they shouldn’t have had a plan before the vote or withdrawal, before the announcement and letter delivered to the European Union. It shows the disregard of the public and the businesses. That the Tories had no plan, David Cameron, never wanted to leave and therefore fled the post as Prime Minister. So the Tories-DUP, initially has to plan, since the haven’t done that already. Their own Foreign Minister is stating that on the 16th September 2017, that if they plan… If they plan.

Just consider that for a moment and think of the time since the letter was sent to European Commission, even further back to the Brexit Election. Clearly, if they plan, they might not get to hurt or to bad of a deal with the EU. Not like it is giving the public hope of their negotiations tactics or framework. Since they still at the planning stage. Peace.

Reference:

Boris Johnson – ‘How Brexit Britain will triumph’ (16.09.2017) – Facebook Article/Daily Telegraph

Brexit: The Tories-DUP will continue to subdue the nation with no publications on their negotiations!

If you are confused about what is at stake or in consideration from the United Kingdom government or the Conservative Party and Democratic Unionist Party (Tories-DUP) government, than it is now by intent. Since, the latest revelation from the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union Robin Walker, have a few brilliantly to a few MPs where he described their level of transparency and accountability, which is far by none! They do not want the world to know, if anyone knows or knew what the plan was for the Tories when they left the European Union. It is amazing, that the United Kingdom are playing at this level. That they have so little touch and wish to inform own citizens of their outcome and possible plan of discontinuing their role as a Member State.

Mr. David Lammy asked on the 5th September:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, what plans his Department has to publish studies into the effect of the UK leaving the EU on different sectors of the UK economy” (Parliament.uk, 13.09.2017).

Today, Robin Walker answered it by:

“It is not standard practice to provide an ongoing commentary on internal analytical work that is being carried out within government. The Government’s plan for leaving the EU has been discussed at length, and Parliament will have a say on the final deal we achieve with the European Union by putting that deal to a vote in both Houses before it comes into force. But as Parliament has also agreed, we will not publish anything that would undermine our ability to negotiate the best deal for the UK” (Parliament.uk, 13.09.2017).

Mr. John Trickett asked on the 5th September:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, how many civil servants have been sent to Brussels at any point to engage in the detail of the Brexit negotiation talks; and how many of these have been seconded from outside the Government” (Parliament.uk, 13.09.2017).

Today, Robin Walker answered it by:

“We have released information on the UK’s senior negotiating team on Gov.uk. As an indication of the number of civil servants in attendance at negotiations in Brussels, at the second round we had over 90 civil servants in attendance, and for the third round, over 100. The total number of staff will vary from round to round as we deploy the negotiating team best able to work on the issues under negotiation. We are drawing together expertise from a wide range of departments where there is specific relevant knowledge on the issues to be negotiated” (…) “I can confirm that of the Department for Exiting the European Union staff who attended the negotiations in July and August, none were seconded from outside of Government. We do not hold information on the contractual arrangements of individuals from other Government Departments” (Parliament.uk, 13.09.2017).

These answers are clearly not enlightening, but are showing the contempt of the Parliament, the Representatives and the citizens as a whole, Brexit negotiators wish to work in secrecy and in peace, without interference, as the knowledge of their plans are hidden in the shadows and not in the open. It is weird, it is strange that the United Kingdom does it like this. That the Brexit team and the ones working for the government want to hold it like a corporate secret. Instead of being open and transparent. Therefore, if the British does not trust their government act in their interests. I understand, because there is nothing to trust. The Tories-DUP government are holding them in contempt and not caring for the people need to know what they are up too. This is not an easy food run, if you bring takeaway Chinese or a Pizza!

This is the ending of a long term Membership Status and all the dozens of agreements that has been made, together with law and protocol for trading and travelling, that has to be reissued and reassured to secure both Unions. Clearly, the Tories and their Secretary thinks it is okay to not publish information, since it can damage their cause. Nevertheless, their cause of action should be in public, since it is in public interest. So if Banks and Industry moves now, they are justified, they do not know their terms for staying behind. London Financial Centre could just move to Dublin or Frankfurt. There the big-multinational financial institutions could secure new benefits within the Euro-Zone. Not be dependent on random guesses of negotiations of the Tories-DUP in Brussels.

That is what can be stated today, that the Brexit department plans to keep it in secret and do not want to be transparent. They want to be secret and neglect their duty to serve the people and their interests. The businesses has all rights to move shop, since if it is all done in secrecy, who will benefit and what will be the end-game? Who knows, right?

Robin Walker, has opened the eyes of hopefully many, if not the Brexit negotiations will be rockier, since the people and corporations cannot trust their government. They have no rights to now, when they do not publish needed public information. Tories-DUP are playing hide-and-seek. We do not know if their hidden or if they are seeking. They could do both. What we do know, is that they do this for a purpose, and that they do not trust the public will to accept their craft, their framework and the possible arrangements they are creating after the Membership with the European Union. Peace

The newly appointed North Ireland Affairs Committee are a Power-Grab by Tories-DUP!

It is special that the newly appointed North Ireland Committee in the United Kingdom Parliament are filled with majority of Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and Conservative Party (Tories), also minor part with Labour Party.

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee membership for the 2017 Parliament has been agreed by the House.

The Chair and Members of the Committee are:

Dr Andrew Murrison MP (Chair) (Conservative)

Mr Gregory Campbell MP (Democratic Unionist Party)

Maria Caulfield MP (Conservative)

Mr Stephen Hepburn MP (Labour)

Lady Hermon MP (Independent)

Kate Hoey MP (Labour)

Jack Lopresti MP (Conservative)

Conor McGinn MP (Labour)

Nigel Mills MP (Conservative)

Ian Paisley MP (Democratic Unionist Party)

Jim Shannon MP (Democratic Unionist Party)” (Parliament.uk – ‘Northern Ireland Affairs Committee membership agreed’ 12.09.2017).

So the NI Affairs Committee are not becoming open to the different parties of the Northern Ireland. These parties that are lost is: Sinn Fein, Ulster Unionist Party (UUP), People Before Profits (PBP), Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) and Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV). All of these parties are silenced. The Good Friday Agreement are not listen to, when the DUP are the only voice in the Committee on the Northern Irish devolution. Since, the UK Government are in marriage with DUP, the Tories need their support to survive.

The Northern Ireland questions opens up even more, as the DUP are in control both in UK Parliament and now also in NI. As their negotiations in Stormont is stalling. Tories-DUP are clearly not listening to the worrying signs after election. Since they are appointing this Committee. They are clearly not listening to Sinn Fein. They are not caring about any of the other parties who don’t have MP’s in White Hall. London isn’t listening to Belfast. They are only listening to the Pro-Unionist, to the ones already loyal to UK. The ones who wants to closer to Dublin are silenced and this sort of selection of people shows it.

DUP have made a coup, they have secured more power and control the funding of Northern Ireland. You can wonder if a Labour government gave all Scottish National Party (SNP) in the Scotland Affairs Committee. All the other parties in the Parliament would create havoc. The Northern Irish should react to this. The Republic of Ireland government should react to this. Since this is proof that the Tories-DUP doesn’t care about Good Friday Agreement. This is all about power and control. Proof in the act of just this. Would they do this to similar acts in Scotland and Wales? Would that be okay?

It might just be a committee now, but what is next? The Tories needs the DUP. Tories-DUP are not ready to listen. To take measures that makes sure the devolution of Stormont get back to work and honor the Good Friday Agreement. The GFA is now on the back-burner. It is evident. Peace.

Brexit: Kevin Barron MP will abstain from voting on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (11.09.2017)

Yet another Future Partnership report on Brexit: The UK Gov. wants similar research collaboration as of today!

The newest report on Research Collaboration between United Kingdom and the European Union, as the withdrawal from the EU will lead to chances in science and research in the United Kingdom. The Tories Government are still within the wishful thinking. Their paradigm is clearly the softest of the soft Brexits. So soft, that butter isn’t soft enough.

Brexit appeal must really be dwindling since most of the Future Partnership Papers has been softball and easy road into withdrawal. The EU will clearly make this harder and more expensive. United Kingdom government wants clearly more of the same. It is expected to be dialogue and negotiations between the partners. Here is some parts of the Reports!

It is the UK’s ambition to build on its uniquely close relationship with the EU, so that collaboration on science and innovation is not only maintained, but strengthened. Therefore, as part of the new, deep and special partnership, the UK will seek an ambitious science and innovation agreement with the EU that will support and promote science and innovation across Europe both now and in the future” (HM Government, P: 7, 2017).

EU programmes have helped foster European scientific collaboration and the UK has been a key contributor to their success. The UK remains a full member of the EU and will be subject to all rights and obligations set out in the Treaties and under EU law, including the principle of sincere cooperation, until it leaves the EU. In that context, and looking ahead to a strong future relationship, both the UK and the European Commission have been clear that they expect the fair treatment of UK researchers and firms. The UK and EU should also work together to provide continuity of collaborative relationships” (HM Government, P: 9, 2017).

The Commission is planning a European Defence Research Programme in the next Multiannual Financial Framework, which is expected to invest €500 million per year in industry and academia from participating countries. To prepare for this, a three-year Action was launched in 2017 and the UK has been instrumental in defining its work programme. The UK would welcome dialogue with the EU and its Member States on the future of this programme and terms for non-EU involvement, noting that Norway will have third-party association in this preparatory phase” (HM Government, P: 13, 2017).

The UK wants to continue playing a major role in creating a brighter future for all European citizens by strengthening collaboration with European partners in science and innovation” (…) “To this end, the UK will seek to agree a far-reaching science and innovation agreement with the EU that establishes a framework for future collaboration. There are a range of existing precedents for collaboration that the UK and the EU can build on, but our uniquely close relationship means there may be merit in designing a more ambitious agreement. The UK hopes to have a full and open discussion with the EU about all of these options as part of the negotiations on our future partnership” (HM Government, P: 16, 2017).

I am not surprised by this Future Partnership Report, it is one of many now. The ones dropped in August was similar, but different topics. United Kingdom wants all of the options on the table and still want close relationship, but the UK will be a non-Member-State. They are focusing on the special bond between the Norwegian and the EU, but that means the UK must work hard to get that relationship. Since the EU will clearly not just give way to UK. Though, the Future Papers are lots of dreams.

So another daydream is done, Brexit Minister David Davis and others in the Tories Government, surely needs help and also should know that EU will not trade-off anything easy. Brexit will not be easy and their papers prove it. As they are having extra-terrestrial and alien belief about their negotiations and their deal-making with the EU. Peace.

Reference:

HM Government – ‘Collaboration on science and innovation – A FUTURE PARTNERSHIP PAPER’ (06.09.2017)

Brexit: Another future exit report with wishful thinking considering the role of CJEU post-Brexit!

The Tories-DUP Government released today yet another report, this report was on enforcement and disputes arising between the Her Majesties Government (HM Government) and the European Union (EU). As of when the United Kingdom abandon it’s membership status to become a non-member of the EU. The Brexit Minister David Davis clearly has lack of vision or trying to take the easy way out. Since the UK government has delivered nothing else, than wishful, we want it as today. So when I went into reading this, it was as expected. It is like the Tories doesn’t care about it or wanting to define what they want as they are going out of the EU. Here some of favorite quotes from today’s report.

As we exit the EU, the UK wants to agree an orderly withdrawal and establish a new, deep and special partnership with the EU. The UK has also made clear that in order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses in both the UK and the EU would benefit from an interim period, where this is necessary for the smooth and orderly implementation of new arrangements” (…) “The success of the future partnership will depend on mutual respect. We will be starting from a strong position: our shared commitment to upholding the rule of law and to meeting our international obligations, and our intention to comply with the agreements reached between us, are not in doubt” (HM Government, P: 3, 2017).

In agreements between the EU and third countries, where cooperation is facilitated through replicating language which is identical in substance to EU law, these agreements can specify that account is to be taken of CJEU decisions when interpreting those concepts. This is relevant where both parties agree that divergence in interpretation would be undesirable, for example, for operational reasons such as continued close cooperation with EU agencies” (…) “The value of such arrangements lie where there is a shared interest in reducing or eliminating divergence in how specific aspects of an agreement with the EU are implemented in the EU and the third country respectively. The extent to which this approach may be valuable depends on the extent to which there is agreement that divergence should be avoided in specific areas” (HM Government, P: 9, 2017).

In international agreements, final remedies are principally retaliatory in nature and implemented unilaterally by the parties. This includes the ability to take safeguard measures to mitigate any negative effects from the other party’s noncompliance as well as the option to suspend all or part of the agreement (or several linked agreements), or, ultimately, withdraw from the agreement (or several linked agreements). The ability of the European Commission and the CJEU within the EU legal system to impose sanctions, such as fines for non-compliance with EU rules, is exceptional” (…) “The agreements governing the UK’s withdrawal from, and future partnership with, the EU will cover a broad range of areas of cooperation. Those agreements should set out clear means by which the terms of the agreements should be implemented and enforced within the UK and the EU. They should also establish a mechanism for the resolution of disputes concerning those agreements” (HM Government, P: 11-12, 2017).

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the United Kingdom, this relationship will get into another position after the withdrawal from the EU. Since the legal disputes will be different between UK and EU, as the membership are now ceased. The UK might have some legal framework between them and the EU.

That EU and UK wants a mutual respect, they both want that. This paper actually states: In agreements between the EU and third countries, where cooperation is facilitated through replicating language which is identical in substance to EU law, these agreements can specify that account is to be taken of CJEU decisions when interpreting those concepts. This is relevant where both parties agree that divergence in interpretation would be undesirable, for example, for operational reasons such as continued close cooperation with EU agencies” (HM Government, 2017).

This specific passage says in essence, that the UK wants to be facilitated and replicating the legal language of the EU, so they can cooperate with EU law, even after leaving. So that it will in general stay much as the same. The concepts and the parties will agree, so they also will function directly with the EU agencies. So the UK want an agreement that fits directly to EU law. This is countering the independence and the mindset of a “hard” Brexit, more like smoothing their system to the EU. The Remains must be jolly, that yet another paper, the HM Government are working for more of the same. Not really changing the status, but wishing for a similar system of today. That means dispute and laws would work in sync with agencies and the CJEU. Which is impressive!

Clearly, the UK want a special mechanism to be sufficient between them, as their new cooperative spirit starts after the withdrawal, but the EU will have a new agreement and a new non Member State who wants to trade, follow procedure and the jurisdiction. This means the UK and the EU needs a new function to fix disputes and legal remedies between the non-members and the EU. The UK are afraid of the EU possible sanctions, as the powers of CJEU are powerful towards to third countries, which means the UK could be sanctioned in a way that haven’t in the past. That is why the UK want to consider a legal language in sync with the EU, so they will follow the EU, even when they are outside the EU. That means a pretty soft, compared to what the Brexit wanted to be. Peace.

Reference:

HM Government – ‘Enforcement and dispute resolution – A FUTURE PARTNERSHIP PAPER’ (23.08.2017)

Brexit: Tories position papers released today on ‘Confidentiality papers’ and ‘Availability of Goods’: Dreams of having the same of today!

It is inspiring to read the documents from the HM Government/Tories-DUP Government on the Withdrawal from the European Union (EU), the Conservative Party and their cabinet should have had a long time working on the prospects of the leaving the Union. The Tories government clearly have had the time to work on it. Still, by this time and with the proper work on it, they have not delivered a clear policy or protocol for important questions. It is sad to see political framework and policies being built on dreams, they will most likely turn into nightmares. Since, the UK will not be in the place and within the same reach of Brussels as before. Even if most of their ideals in their papers. Are put in ways, where they want the future to be like yesterday.

How the day went on yesterday, how the paperwork between the states will change, as the membership are cut-off. Yesterday, movement of goods went within the legislation and procedures put by duplicated acts of the Members States, something UK has done in their time of membership. It has to be different, and it will be, unless the EU will treat UK as different third-party state. Most likely not, but you cannot fail the Tories for having dreams.

Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union David Davis said:

These papers will help give businesses and consumers certainty and confidence in the UK’s status as an economic powerhouse after we have left the EU” (UK Gov, 2017).

Confidentiality:

At present, members of the institutions of the Union, the members of committees, and the officials and other servants of the Union are obliged not to disclose certain information obtained in the course of their duties. This obligation is presently set out in Article 339 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 37 of Protocol 4 to the Treaties” (…) “The UK considers that individuals (of any nationality) who are bound by Article 339, prior to the UK’s withdrawal, should continue, after the UK’s withdrawal, to respect their obligations in respect of information obtained through this work, and that information pertaining to UK individuals and interests should continue to be afforded the same protection” (…) “Classified information exchanged in the interests of the EU is currently governed by an Agreement of 4 May 2011, between the Member States of the European Union meeting within the Council. The UK considers that there is a mutual interest in ensuring that information covered by this agreement, and in the possession of the relevant party prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, continues to enjoy an equivalent level of protection after exit” (HM Government, P 1-2 – Confidentiality, 2017).

That the Tories government continues and want to continue like it is, even if the state of affairs changes when their membership to Union ceases. This should be easy to understand, but the UK Government thinks the procedures will follow the same level and with same cooperation, even if they are a third-party state outside the European Union. It is impressive that this is the issue again, on yet another paper doddle down by Minister and his peers. Now let

On availability of goods for the EU and the UK:

It will also be important that business and consumers are confident that goods placed on the market and in use across the UK and the EU comply with relevant product legislation. Moreover, market surveillance and enforcement authorities should have access to information about unsafe products, such as medicines and food, and mechanisms to take action with respect to non-compliant goods” (…) “The UK believes that the views of business and consumers must be at the heart of this discussion. The UK will continue to engage with businesses and consumer organisations to understand more about their concerns, and notes that there are issues in relation to services as well as in relation to goods. The UK is keen to use the current discussions to ensure that all the relevant issues are resolved – whether in the separation discussions related to goods or elsewhere – in a way that is consistent with the UK’s ambition for our future relationship” (…) “First, to ensure the continued availability of products on EU and UK markets at the date of withdrawal, goods placed on the Single Market before exit should continue to circulate freely in the UK and the EU, without additional requirements or restrictions” (…) “The Withdrawal Agreement should recognise the validity of this compliance activity where it has taken place prior to exit. This should be recognised for both the UK and EU markets regardless of where the activity took place, and it should be recognised for the full time period or type of products intended when the compliance activity was undertaken. Any further compliance activity required after withdrawal as a result of the prior compliance activity should be conducted as originally intended. This would avoid business and authorities in both the EU and the UK needing to undertake significant duplicative compliance activity after exit, for example to re-inspect approved manufacturing plants or collect and submit data again” (…) “The UK wants to ensure that any approvals, registrations, certificates and authorisations issued by a third party (whether a private entity or a public agency) prior to exit should continue to be recognised as valid by both markets after the UK’s withdrawal. These assessments will have been conducted and the data will have been provided in accordance with legislative requirements by a body recognised as competent. Therefore, it would avoid disruption and provide legal certainty if the results of these activities were recognised in both markets. These approvals should be valid for the intended time period or product life-cycle as when they were granted to avoid the need for retesting of products” (…) “Once a product is placed on the UK and the EU markets, it is essential that both parties can trace products through the supply chain and market surveillance authorities can ensure action is taken with respect to non-compliant goods” (…) “These key principles are aimed at providing legal certainty, while avoiding disruption to business and consumers in regard to the availability of goods. They represent a starting point for enabling a smooth and orderly withdrawal, and moving to a deep and special future partnership, which enables our close trading relationship to continue to flourish” (HM Government, P: 2-3, 6-7 – Availability, 2017).

That the UK and Tories government wants the non-compliant goods to work as it does today. The Tories specifically wants a discussion resolved to fit the businesses as of today. Even if so, it will be hard to have it that way, because the UK believes the EU wants to keep the same ways transactions between EU producers and UK producers of goods. That the UK wants it to be like today and also have the same sort of system for goods. However, the EU will always have different systems for third-party states.

That both parties has to surveillance of goods and make sure services are followed between the states. Which is naturally, as the states has to able to follow the supply chain of the goods. It is inevitable and the EU will already have legislation that marks and control the market. So that products are safe and safeguard consumers.

That the Tories wish a smooth and easy access seems again, the Tories wants it simple and as of today, with both confidential documents and goods on the market. The Tories want to be part of the Common-Trading Market. They want to have the Schengen laws for goods, but distance themselves from the open-boarders when coming to people.

It is weird that the Tories think their produce, their products and the services can move like today to the European Union. That the Tories wish so is wishful thinking. It is easy for them to try to get this, but as a non-Member State they will have obstacles when concerning the status of United Kingdom.

Therefore, the whole papers released today from the Tories are more of wanting what they already have in their arrangements with the European Union. The EU will most likely not make it this easy, they have dozens of Member States and also procedure to think off. They cannot trade-off easily because of previous engagements. Than, the value of the EU Membership will be worthless. Since the UK outside get the same benefits as member-states within. Peace.

Reference:

HM Government – ‘Confidentiality and access to documents – Position Paper’ (21.08.2017)

HM Government – ‘Continuity in the availability of goods for the EU and the UK’ (21.08.2017)

UK Gov – ‘Position papers published ahead of third round of negotiations’ (21.08.2017) link: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/position-papers-published-ahead-of-round-three-negotiations

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: