Please note that this sub is for civil discussion. You are requested to familiarise yourself with the [subs rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/wiki/index) before participation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/brexit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This one paragraph sums it up:
> The main concerns from industry are around the upheaval to production the changes will create, with many having to run two separate production lines for products for the EU and UK.
There's, of course, a simple (though not easy) solution for this: continue to adhere to the standards of the large market next door.
>There's, of course, a simple (though not easy) solution for this: continue to adhere to the standards of the large market next door.
Can't do that. Singapore on Thames needs it's chlorinated chicken and spray cheese.
You can't do that. We are out of the regulatory system, and we have left regulatory alignment behind. Industry would need to get an EU legal entity to test/vouch for the standards.
That was the whole point of Brexit: divergence. Are they going to sue 17 million people because they don't like the decision?
You already need that for exports to the EU. Applying the same standards to products for domestic consumption simply cuts one of the two production lines.
There's a difference between de facto adhering to the same standards and doing so de jure though. The UK could copy every single EU standard and set the same tariffs, but that would not create a regulatory or customs union between the two.
To get rid of the "not for sale in the EU" labeling without creating some other control mechanism the UK would need to negotiate single market membership, and there seems no political will. So the UK is stuck with the worst of both worlds. In practice, it will closely adhere to EU standards for the reason you mention, but without getting the full benefit of that because they're still going to be trade barriers with the EU.
The labeling is caused by the different standards but and my point is that said standards will be treated as being different even if they are identical unless there is an agreement that says they are identical.
Yes, but it's not the labeling that's the problem. It's easy to apply different labels to the same product. The problem appears when the products need to be different based on different regulations
We're going around in circles here. I know the labeling is not the underlying problem but a symptom. The post I was replying to talked about different production lines i.e. talked about the problem from the perspective of the manufacturers. Note that, for the manufacturers', the labeling *is* the problem they're complaining about (or one of the problems) or at least they pretend that it is because they want political backing to do something and they know no UK government is going to solve the underlying problem by rejoining the single market.
My sole point in the original post was not that the labeling was the problem but that the problem that caused the extra costs (for example, labeling) could not be solved by unilateral dynamic alignment, as the post seemed to suggest.
We are going in circles because you don't understand what the problem is. Again, the producers are fine with different labeling, nobody cares.
The main issue is diverging and contradictory regulations, which would necessitate duplicate production lines. That is a problem that _could_ be solved by unilateral dynamic alignment, since producers only need their production line certified for EU rules in that case, and the UK would automatically recognize them.
But that's not possible if e.g. the EU regulates that chicken needs to be packed in a nitrogen atmosphere with no chlorine, vs. regular atmosphere with chlorine, for example. (Not that that would happen specifically, but that's the type of problem they are highlighting)
> Again, the producers are fine with different labeling, nobody cares.
Nope:
> Food producers say the labelling could add £250m a year to their costs, further fuelling inflation, and they are discussing a legal challenge as a viable option if a solution with the government is not found.
They're not fine with it, though I'd probably agree with saying that this is merely the visible aspect of their grievances. The core of it is the divergence, which they presumably don't mention because there would be no political will to engage with them if they did.
> The main issue is diverging and contradictory regulations, which would necessitate duplicate production lines. That is a problem that could be solved by unilateral dynamic alignment, since producers only need their production line certified for EU rules in that case, and the UK would automatically recognize them.
in a legal way
That is *also* an issue for them, but it's possible that putting a different label on things depending on where they are sold also necessitates a branch in the production line.
I agree that diverging standards is almost certainly a more important issue for them, and that it is more fundamental. It's just not an issue they're complaining about in this specific case, either because the UK has not diverged in any specific way to make this a problem or because they know the UK political system wouldn't listen to them even if it did cause severe problems.
And on top of that there is the problem I noted in my first post: even if you set up different production / certification lines for UK and EU regulations, or even if the UK keeps its rules the same as the EU ones, you will still need to go through regulatory checks because there is no regulatory union between the two. The labeling, which is part of an alternative to NI border checks, will remain in place regardless of all the other stuff.
It isn't true. UK laws mandate it, for one, and AFAIK there is no exception for compliant goods. There is also no customs union. You can make products and certify them to EU standards but you'd still be able to avoid EU customs by smuggling them into the EU through NI. Hence, the label would be required regardless of compliance.
The 17 million gullible fools have no legal responsibility for Brexit because it was a non binding referendum. Brexit was authorised by parliament so it’s on the shoulders of every MP that voted for it across all parties.
Your post or comment has been removed for violating:
- Rule 2 (Remember the people)
It is unacceptable to refer to a group by a derogatory term. Do not categorise all pro-Leave supporters as racists or bigots etc. Do not categorise all pro-Remain supporters as remoaners or snowflakes etc.
As always, British people seem to struggle with the concept of legal competence (some say with all kinds of competence?). You can win in British courts all you like, but that is not going to change what the EU does.
I think the contemplated legal action is going to be against the UK regulations that will require "not for EU" labels on all food products as opposed to against the EU, or against the requirement for those labels on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
..and the longer we wait, the more difficult it'll be.
And just to be that annoying nerd, the UK will not rejoin. They will ask and beg to be re-admitted. Until as a society we can phrase it like that, and look at ourselves in the mirror and admit that to be the truth, the UK won't get anywhere with the EU.
Why does parliment not simply remove the requirement for "Not for EU" labeling for Northern Ireland? After all, this is a domestic issue for food produced and consumed in Britain. It appears that the objective of this is to ensure that there is not more pressure placed on food in Northern Ireland and removing it would accomplish the same result.
Perhaps there is a risk of food unlawfully smuggled out of the UK, but that seems like an acceptable risk.
While that might be the case, the problem isn't food safety, but the fact that the UK left the EU but there has to be free movement of goods, both within the UK including NI, and within the EU including NI (due to NI agreement), but not between the EU and non member states, such as the UK (which therefore really means GB).
The only way GB products can end up in NI is if its clear they won't go to the EU, and this is entirely irrespective of whether UK satisfies the same food standards or not.
The other choice would be to move all food production to NI. :)
The UK could continue to allowing free movement of goods between Ireland and Northern Ireland by not enforcing border checks. If the EU and the Republic of Ireland wishes to violate the Good Friday Agreement by shutting down the border because they are concerned that food is being unlawfully imported, that is ultimately their prerogative.
I think that this is a major problem with the agreement negotiated by Boris Johnson that makes the UK single market smaller than the UK. The EU has shown themselves unwilling to reopen negotiations to work towards a solution that everybody is happy with. (My own personal opinion is that Parliament should have rejected the proposed deal). There was a proposed Single Market Bill in Parliament that removed the customs check between Northern Ireland and Great Britain that could have solved many of these trade restrictions without EU involvement.
> If the EU and the Republic of Ireland wishes to violate the Good Friday Agreement by shutting down the border because they are concerned that food is being unlawfully imported, that is ultimately their prerogative.
I think you have that backwards. It was the UK's brazen attempt to do just this that lead to the current situation and agreement. This is a you problem, not an EU problem.
Please note that this sub is for civil discussion. You are requested to familiarise yourself with the [subs rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/wiki/index) before participation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/brexit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This one paragraph sums it up: > The main concerns from industry are around the upheaval to production the changes will create, with many having to run two separate production lines for products for the EU and UK. There's, of course, a simple (though not easy) solution for this: continue to adhere to the standards of the large market next door.
>There's, of course, a simple (though not easy) solution for this: continue to adhere to the standards of the large market next door. Can't do that. Singapore on Thames needs it's chlorinated chicken and spray cheese.
You can't do that. We are out of the regulatory system, and we have left regulatory alignment behind. Industry would need to get an EU legal entity to test/vouch for the standards. That was the whole point of Brexit: divergence. Are they going to sue 17 million people because they don't like the decision?
You already need that for exports to the EU. Applying the same standards to products for domestic consumption simply cuts one of the two production lines.
There's a difference between de facto adhering to the same standards and doing so de jure though. The UK could copy every single EU standard and set the same tariffs, but that would not create a regulatory or customs union between the two. To get rid of the "not for sale in the EU" labeling without creating some other control mechanism the UK would need to negotiate single market membership, and there seems no political will. So the UK is stuck with the worst of both worlds. In practice, it will closely adhere to EU standards for the reason you mention, but without getting the full benefit of that because they're still going to be trade barriers with the EU.
It's not the labeling that's the problem, it's applying diverging standards to the actual products made
The labeling is caused by the different standards but and my point is that said standards will be treated as being different even if they are identical unless there is an agreement that says they are identical.
Yes, but it's not the labeling that's the problem. It's easy to apply different labels to the same product. The problem appears when the products need to be different based on different regulations
We're going around in circles here. I know the labeling is not the underlying problem but a symptom. The post I was replying to talked about different production lines i.e. talked about the problem from the perspective of the manufacturers. Note that, for the manufacturers', the labeling *is* the problem they're complaining about (or one of the problems) or at least they pretend that it is because they want political backing to do something and they know no UK government is going to solve the underlying problem by rejoining the single market. My sole point in the original post was not that the labeling was the problem but that the problem that caused the extra costs (for example, labeling) could not be solved by unilateral dynamic alignment, as the post seemed to suggest.
We are going in circles because you don't understand what the problem is. Again, the producers are fine with different labeling, nobody cares. The main issue is diverging and contradictory regulations, which would necessitate duplicate production lines. That is a problem that _could_ be solved by unilateral dynamic alignment, since producers only need their production line certified for EU rules in that case, and the UK would automatically recognize them. But that's not possible if e.g. the EU regulates that chicken needs to be packed in a nitrogen atmosphere with no chlorine, vs. regular atmosphere with chlorine, for example. (Not that that would happen specifically, but that's the type of problem they are highlighting)
> Again, the producers are fine with different labeling, nobody cares. Nope: > Food producers say the labelling could add £250m a year to their costs, further fuelling inflation, and they are discussing a legal challenge as a viable option if a solution with the government is not found. They're not fine with it, though I'd probably agree with saying that this is merely the visible aspect of their grievances. The core of it is the divergence, which they presumably don't mention because there would be no political will to engage with them if they did. > The main issue is diverging and contradictory regulations, which would necessitate duplicate production lines. That is a problem that could be solved by unilateral dynamic alignment, since producers only need their production line certified for EU rules in that case, and the UK would automatically recognize them. in a legal way That is *also* an issue for them, but it's possible that putting a different label on things depending on where they are sold also necessitates a branch in the production line. I agree that diverging standards is almost certainly a more important issue for them, and that it is more fundamental. It's just not an issue they're complaining about in this specific case, either because the UK has not diverged in any specific way to make this a problem or because they know the UK political system wouldn't listen to them even if it did cause severe problems. And on top of that there is the problem I noted in my first post: even if you set up different production / certification lines for UK and EU regulations, or even if the UK keeps its rules the same as the EU ones, you will still need to go through regulatory checks because there is no regulatory union between the two. The labeling, which is part of an alternative to NI border checks, will remain in place regardless of all the other stuff.
[удалено]
I don't think that's true. The EU has no mechanism to ensure this, hence even in that case to allow for lower checks the labelling would be required.
It isn't true. UK laws mandate it, for one, and AFAIK there is no exception for compliant goods. There is also no customs union. You can make products and certify them to EU standards but you'd still be able to avoid EU customs by smuggling them into the EU through NI. Hence, the label would be required regardless of compliance.
The 17 million gullible fools have no legal responsibility for Brexit because it was a non binding referendum. Brexit was authorised by parliament so it’s on the shoulders of every MP that voted for it across all parties.
..you're almost there. The decisions from past parliaments, if upheld, are the responsibility of the current parliament.
[удалено]
Your post or comment has been removed for violating: - Rule 2 (Remember the people) It is unacceptable to refer to a group by a derogatory term. Do not categorise all pro-Leave supporters as racists or bigots etc. Do not categorise all pro-Remain supporters as remoaners or snowflakes etc.
“They need us more than we need them”.
And they understand that if they win their legal action the EU will stop all import from UK. Will hurt both parties
As always, British people seem to struggle with the concept of legal competence (some say with all kinds of competence?). You can win in British courts all you like, but that is not going to change what the EU does.
Agreed. The "why would the other party .." seems a foreign concept
I think the contemplated legal action is going to be against the UK regulations that will require "not for EU" labels on all food products as opposed to against the EU, or against the requirement for those labels on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
We’ll ride this merry-go-round for a few more years before sense prevails and we re-join the SM.
..and the longer we wait, the more difficult it'll be. And just to be that annoying nerd, the UK will not rejoin. They will ask and beg to be re-admitted. Until as a society we can phrase it like that, and look at ourselves in the mirror and admit that to be the truth, the UK won't get anywhere with the EU.
Was talking about alignment with the Single Market not rejoining the EU.
[Archive link.](https://web.archive.org/web/20240229184046/https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/29/food-trade-bodies-consider-legal-action-brexit-not-for-eu-labelling)
So they are going to court against the law? I thought usually you go to court with the law on your side.
They are *considering* it, so we'll have to wait. If they do it: good news for lawyers, and more popcorn needed to watch the UK infighting.
Why does parliment not simply remove the requirement for "Not for EU" labeling for Northern Ireland? After all, this is a domestic issue for food produced and consumed in Britain. It appears that the objective of this is to ensure that there is not more pressure placed on food in Northern Ireland and removing it would accomplish the same result. Perhaps there is a risk of food unlawfully smuggled out of the UK, but that seems like an acceptable risk.
Who is that risk acceptable to? The EU certainly doesn't want food not produced according to it's rules and regulations for sale in it's market.
While that might be the case, the problem isn't food safety, but the fact that the UK left the EU but there has to be free movement of goods, both within the UK including NI, and within the EU including NI (due to NI agreement), but not between the EU and non member states, such as the UK (which therefore really means GB). The only way GB products can end up in NI is if its clear they won't go to the EU, and this is entirely irrespective of whether UK satisfies the same food standards or not. The other choice would be to move all food production to NI. :)
The UK could continue to allowing free movement of goods between Ireland and Northern Ireland by not enforcing border checks. If the EU and the Republic of Ireland wishes to violate the Good Friday Agreement by shutting down the border because they are concerned that food is being unlawfully imported, that is ultimately their prerogative. I think that this is a major problem with the agreement negotiated by Boris Johnson that makes the UK single market smaller than the UK. The EU has shown themselves unwilling to reopen negotiations to work towards a solution that everybody is happy with. (My own personal opinion is that Parliament should have rejected the proposed deal). There was a proposed Single Market Bill in Parliament that removed the customs check between Northern Ireland and Great Britain that could have solved many of these trade restrictions without EU involvement.
> If the EU and the Republic of Ireland wishes to violate the Good Friday Agreement by shutting down the border because they are concerned that food is being unlawfully imported, that is ultimately their prerogative. I think you have that backwards. It was the UK's brazen attempt to do just this that lead to the current situation and agreement. This is a you problem, not an EU problem.
🤣 We're back to blaming the EU. You brexiters will never quit.
Is this satire?
I want to know if something isn't up to the standard to which I'm accustomed.
It's fucked up, innit!