EU may need to extend deadline for trade talks with UK: von der Leyen

[candide]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

I am not referring to the worker/consumer protection and HSE aspect. I am referring to the financial cost for small businesses that have to comply with EU regulations, even of they do not export to the EU.

If the benefit is so obvious, why is no one able to state precisely which regulations can be scrapped. So It's not about health, safety and consumer protection. Most product standards are just about that, directly, or indirectly by making sure products are compatible with each other.

So which regulations with a significant impact on SMEs can be scrapped?

[david555]

15 minutes ago, nauseus said:

If you are wondering why you we did not leave 3 years ago here are the two main reasons (as discussed endlessly on TV) previously:

 

1. As a member of the EU, the UK was obliged to follow the terms of Article 50. So, once the letter of intent to leave was sent in March 2017, there were two years allowed to conclude the framework for withdrawal (the Withdrawal Agreement).

 

2. The process of 1 (above) was delayed by the newly installed remainer PM (May), who displayed the heart and negotiating skills of a muppet, and a heavily remain-oriented HoC and HoL, with the former now recently flushed of offensive germs.

 

Whoop whoop.

  

A) two years allowed

b) was delayed by the newly installed remainer PM (May),

Whoop whoop...…= al from your U.K. side …..leaving is leaving not standing in the doorway....55555

 

 

"Damn damn those bloody E.U. gang does not give in …." (must have  being the continuing thought's from those marvelous handy though U.K. negotiators ….i think  I know …., nothing changed now , better get used to that knowledge 

Edited December 30, 2019 by david555

[billd766]

3 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

Just not true again. We both follow the planning established before. Current step is to wait for UK to ratify the withdrawal agreement.

Then only will come negotiations, and their durations will depends of which subjects/sectors can be postpone to after 2020, and of how far from EU rules the UK want to be able to go...

Recent declarations of UK's PM are not really compatible with a less than 1 year duration. 

Established, but NOT ratified by Teresa May, who in case you had not noticed is no longer PM.

A new PM with a majority who is trying to dismember the last 3 1/2 years of fudges and screw ups of the Remainers, to give the voters what they wanted back in 2016 at the referendum. It was reinforced at the last election which gave an even larger vote to the Tories under Boris to leave the EU.

And still there are many Remainers who are trying to stop the progress of the democratic votes and cannot accept reality.

How many times did the UK ask for an extension of time and it was granted?

 

This time the UK has drawn a line in the sand with a definitive time limit.

 

Will there be an extension for the EU? I have absolutely no idea and neither does anybody else.

 

Boris has a totally different attitude to Teresa May who gave the EU everything they wanted. Boris has given them a time frame to work with. If they had no plans other than keeping the UK in the EU, that is their problem and not that of the UK. Heavens above, they may even have to do some work for 8 hours a day and 5 days a week instead of procrastinating. I am sure that overtime and working weekends will be available from the EU budget.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

So Johnson did not have an oven ready deal after all as both sides need to agree on any deal.

Another of his lies exposed for all to see but for many to ignore.

But I didn't say that Boris had an oven ready deal.

 

The guy who wrote post #201  did.

 

I will give you a hint as to who that was.

 

quote "10 hours ago, Rookiescot said:
Whats the problem?

Johnson has an "oven ready deal" so there should be no need for any extension.

 

How did you know that Boris had an oven ready deal"?

 

He probably had a good idea of what he wanted together with a couple of fallback plans, but until he won the general election that was all he had. He has a Brexit team to work on them and he will go from there.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, Chelseafan said:

Fake news. @billd766 said

 

"or how after the referendum the UK economy will crash, millions of people will be jobless and homeless and thousands of businesses will fold to send the UK into bankruptcy? "

Please put the whole quote in and then you can snip out what you want in the reply.

 

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

 

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Fake news. Economists said the economy will suffer after we leave.

 

 

[evadgib]

3 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Exactly which prediction did I make about Boris?

I gave up predicting British people. Many of them don't think rational.

 

I never said or wrote I know best. But likely I wrote lots of times that it makes sense to look at reality and accept facts.

Lets say you would show up with a girl from Soi 6 which you met an hour ago and you tell me you want to marry her. I wouldn't dare to tell you it's impossible. But probably I would warn you that your chance of success is not very high - just like the UK with Boris in charge.

You're sounding more like chomper every day, or at least up until the point his candidate was routed rendering his 'Steve Bray' rig somewhat redundant.

[CG1 Blue]

1 hour ago, candide said:

If the benefit is so obvious, why is no one able to state precisely which regulations can be scrapped. So It's not about health, safety and consumer protection. Most product standards are just about that, directly, or indirectly by making sure products are compatible with each other.

So which regulations with a significant impact on SMEs can be scrapped?

The EU regulations are not a hindrance for large global corporate entities, because they have the scale and resources to deal with them. EU regulations are seen by many as a way to keep the the huge global corporate entities in control. These large companies have lobbyists surrounding the EU parliament, bending the ears of MEPs and EU council members. 

The regulations are inflexible, and are applied to all businesses regardless of whether or not the regulations are relevant to that company's activities. Many SMEs, and their already narrow profit margins, are being choked further by bureaucratic laws and regulations, imposing unnecessary additional costs and endless hours of paperwork. Some examples for you: 

 

The Health and Safety Framework Directive. This forces small businesses to keep written health and safety risk assessments, even if they are working in a low-risk sector. These legal requirements cost time and money, and it should be up to the UK Government to decide whether small, low-risk businesses need to have written risk assessments.

Post-Brexit, businesses who only carry out low-risk activities could be exempted, providing greater flexibility.

 

The Waste Framework Directive. This requires all businesses to register as waste carriers even if the waste being transported is considered low-risk. Again, the time and administrative costs spent, disproportionately impacts the work of smaller firms. Whilst some companies transport hazardous waste in small and large quantities, the majority do not. Removing such requirements for those who only transport a small amount of low-risk waste, could benefit tens of thousands of small businesses.

 

 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, candide said:

If the benefit is so obvious, why is no one able to state precisely which regulations can be scrapped. So It's not about health, safety and consumer protection. Most product standards are just about that, directly, or indirectly by making sure products are compatible with each other.

So which regulations with a significant impact on SMEs can be scrapped?

Many UK SMEs are constrained by a the thousands of EU rules which cost smaller firms with limited human resources. More thousands of regulations would, no doubt, arrive in the future. A high majority of UK SMEs do not even trade with the EU!

 

Freedom from excessive regulation/cost will mean more production and profit for these UK domestic market SMEs.

 

Which regulations? Thousands of these blanket rules, which have to be observed by these businesses, most of which do zero trade with the EU:

 

But couple of general examples which harm SMEs far more than large multinationals:

 

Part of the Health and Safety Framework Directive makes low-risk SMEs keep H&S risk assessments - no exemptions and totally inflexible - results are extra administrative time and costs.

 

The Waste Framework Directive makes all businesses register even if their waste is considered low-risk. Affects small firms far worse than large corporations with existing large HSE departments. More extra admin and cost for the little guy. 

 

There are many more but I think that you are the expert and I'm sure that you could pick out the best (of the worst)!

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, david555 said:

A) two years allowed

b) was delayed by the newly installed remainer PM (May),

Whoop whoop...…= al from your U.K. side …..leaving is leaving not standing in the doorway....55555

 

 

"Damn damn those bloody E.U. gang does not give in …." (must have  being the continuing thought's from those marvelous handy though U.K. negotiators ….i think  I know …., nothing changed now , better get used to that knowledge 

Can't make much sense of this but I disagree -  plenty has changed. 

[nauseus]

22 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

The EU regulations are not a hindrance for large global corporate entities, because they have the scale and resources to deal with them. EU regulations are seen by many as a way to keep the the huge global corporate entities in control. These large companies have lobbyists surrounding the EU parliament, bending the ears of MEPs and EU council members. 

The regulations are inflexible, and are applied to all businesses regardless of whether or not the regulations are relevant to that company's activities. Many SMEs, and their already narrow profit margins, are being choked further by bureaucratic laws and regulations, imposing unnecessary additional costs and endless hours of paperwork. Some examples for you: 

 

The Health and Safety Framework Directive. This forces small businesses to keep written health and safety risk assessments, even if they are working in a low-risk sector. These legal requirements cost time and money, and it should be up to the UK Government to decide whether small, low-risk businesses need to have written risk assessments.

Post-Brexit, businesses who only carry out low-risk activities could be exempted, providing greater flexibility.

 

The Waste Framework Directive. This requires all businesses to register as waste carriers even if the waste being transported is considered low-risk. Again, the time and administrative costs spent, disproportionately impacts the work of smaller firms. Whilst some companies transport hazardous waste in small and large quantities, the majority do not. Removing such requirements for those who only transport a small amount of low-risk waste, could benefit tens of thousands of small businesses.

 

 

I must have been replying at the same time. ????

[david555]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Can't make much sense of this but I disagree -  plenty has changed. 

On U.K. side yes …. not on E.U. side , Juncker to background (probably advising V.D.Leye…) yes , Barnier in pole position readynes 

Edited December 30, 2019 by david555

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, david555 said:

On U.K. side yes …. not on E.U. side , Juncker to background  yes , Barnier in pole position readynes 

Barnier is on softs now.

[david555]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Barnier is on softs now.

You would wish ….

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, david555 said:

On U.K. side yes …. not on E.U. side , Juncker to background (probably advising V.D.Leye…) yes , Barnier in pole position readynes 

On the EU side too and many are saying, not for the better.

 

[david555]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

On the EU side too and many are saying, not for the better.

 

A Brit defending British point of view , what else to expect.... no worry's  for U.K., WTO rules on the way 

[vogie]

7 minutes ago, david555 said:

A Brit defending British point of view , what else to expect.... no worry's  for U.K., WTO rules on the way 

No further questions your honour, I rest my case.

Edited December 30, 2019 by vogie

[CG1 Blue]

32 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I must have been replying at the same time. ????

Great minds and all that ????

[OneMoreFarang]

57 minutes ago, evadgib said:

You're sounding more like chomper every day, or at least up until the point his candidate was routed rendering his 'Steve Bray' rig somewhat redundant.

What? No quote? No facts? Next time you accuse anybody of doing anything get your facts together.

[candide]

33 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Many UK SMEs are constrained by a the thousands of EU rules which cost smaller firms with limited human resources. More thousands of regulations would, no doubt, arrive in the future. A high majority of UK SMEs do not even trade with the EU!

 

Freedom from excessive regulation/cost will mean more production and profit for these UK domestic market SMEs.

 

Which regulations? Thousands of these blanket rules, which have to be observed by these businesses, most of which do zero trade with the EU:

 

But couple of general examples which harm SMEs far more than large multinationals:

 

Part of the Health and Safety Framework Directive makes low-risk SMEs keep H&S risk assessments - no exemptions and totally inflexible - results are extra administrative time and costs.

 

The Waste Framework Directive makes all businesses register even if their waste is considered low-risk. Affects small firms far worse than large corporations with existing large HSE departments. More extra admin and cost for the little guy. 

 

There are many more but I think that you are the expert and I'm sure that you could pick out the best (of the worst)!

Ok so It's about health and safety, after all!

 

I don't deny the fact that regulations are more of a problem for SMEs than for big firms. My point is: would it be significantly different after Brexit? These regulations reflect trends affecting all developed countries and demands by their citizens.

 

Additionally, as usual, you wrongly assume that European bureaucrats are not able to listen to relevant claims by SMEs or others. Actually, they do take these claims into  Let's see what I found:

"The SME Circle succeeded in exempting companies from the obligation to register with the competent authorities when transporting less than two tonnes of hazardous waste per year. It is small and medium-sized enterprises especially that work in the craft industry, for example, and use oil rags for cleaning purposes. Without the exemption, the oil rags could have been considered a hazardous substance and the obligation to register would have disproportionately affected these businesses, which account for 2/3 of total employment in the EU."

 

"Another accomplishment in support of SMEs is the increased threshold for reporting duties under the EU Emission Trading System (ETS). Less stringent monitoring and reporting requirements now apply for small emitters who put out less than or up to 50,000 tonnes of CO². Around 13,500 companies will benefit from these rules by not having to employ additional staff."

 

https://www.eppgroup.eu/newsroom/news/sme-circle-delivering-tangible-benefits-for-europe-s-small-businesses

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

On the EU side too and many are saying, not for the better.

 

I remember this. The elevation of bozos. Makes you wonder who really is running the show?

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Ok so It's about health and safety, after all!

 

I don't deny the fact that regulations are more of a problem for SMEs than for big firms. My point is: would it be significantly different after Brexit? These regulations reflect trends affecting all developed countries and demands by their citizens.

 

Additionally, as usual, you wrongly assume that European bureaucrats are not able to listen to relevant claims by SMEs or others. Actually, they do take these claims into  Let's see what I found:

"The SME Circle succeeded in exempting companies from the obligation to register with the competent authorities when transporting less than two tonnes of hazardous waste per year. It is small and medium-sized enterprises especially that work in the craft industry, for example, and use oil rags for cleaning purposes. Without the exemption, the oil rags could have been considered a hazardous substance and the obligation to register would have disproportionately affected these businesses, which account for 2/3 of total employment in the EU."

 

"Another accomplishment in support of SMEs is the increased threshold for reporting duties under the EU Emission Trading System (ETS). Less stringent monitoring and reporting requirements now apply for small emitters who put out less than or up to 50,000 tonnes of CO². Around 13,500 companies will benefit from these rules by not having to employ additional staff."

 

https://www.eppgroup.eu/newsroom/news/sme-circle-delivering-tangible-benefits-for-europe-s-small-businesses

It's about red tape. Good health and safety protection is expensive and unnecessary regulation adds additional cost.

 

It can be significantly different after Brexit if regulations are applied sensibly. 

 

I did not say or assume that European bureaucrats are not able to listen but your examples of exemptions are specific but too few, too far between and do not alter the costs much for most British SMEs. 

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, david555 said:

A Brit defending British point of view , what else to expect.... no worry's  for U.K., WTO rules on the way 

The points of view offered seemed to be mainly from the German press. Oh dear...

 

 

[Monomial]

17 hours ago, samran said:

It’s not ‘som Nam naa’.
 

But if you are out of the common market you have the common EU tariff/quotas to deal with - the one they give all non EU/EEA countries trying to sell stuff into the EU. 
 

Even if tariffs are minimal, the extra compliance cost of shipping into the EU (remember you are out of the common market) adds a regulatory burden - customs forms, border delays etc - for the UK exporter to the EU. 
 

Either way it adds a cost to the end product for the final consumer in the EU. Prices go up, demand goes down. Basic economics.

 

And given the UK is more reliant on exports to the EU, than vice versa. About half your exports go there. So anything making your exports more expensive is going to have consequences.

 

And, I just fact checked old Loiners claim about the UK having a trade surplus.

 

According to your own parliament, you actually have a trade defect with the EU. So much then about punching above your weight.

 

”The UK had an overall trade deficit of -£66 billion with the EU in 2018. A surplus of £28 billion on trade in services was outweighed by a deficit of -£94 billion on trade in goods”

 

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851

 

 

 

So I am a bit more sober this evening but still having trouble understanding your position. It seems to me, that if the UK is running a trade deficit with the EU, then the EU stands a lot more to lose in a WTO situation than the UK does. It should be an order of magnitude easier for the UK to find a new supplier, than it would be for the EU to find a new customer.

 

I suppose, In the short term and as a percentage of total economy, it might be true that the UK will feel the pinch of the loss of the 28 billion in services it exports (because as you point out that makes up a bigger percentage of the total, even if smaller in absolute terms), but it would seem to me over time that the UK will have an easier job finding a new customer for 28 billion across the rest of the planet, than it will be for the EU to find a buyer for the lost 94 billion across the rest of the planet. 

 

And that advantage would seem to be magnified by the fact that services can be quickly retooled to meet the needs of a new market (and are completely and instantaneously responsive to currency devaluations), where as real goods need a buyer who wants to accept the products as produced (and need natural resources that don't necessarily get cheaper just because the economy wishes them to be).

 

I would think that all things being equal, the EU should be more worried about losing a net customer, than the UK would be about losing a vendor. Obviously there will be an adaptation period, but he longer that goes on, the more it would seem to benefit the UK relative to the EU.  At first glance it would seem it is the EU's best interest to conclude the deal as quickly as is humanly possible to keep the UK buying EU goods rather than allow the UK to source them somewhere else. It's always best to keep a customer rather than trying to find a new one.

 

 

 

 

[david555]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The points of view offered seemed to be mainly from the German press. Oh dear...

 

 

Nothing wrong with defending your point …. it could be right or wrong but anyway colored in the own country  colors ….

Remember Sadam's mass destruction weapons...? Never found by the brothers in arms USA & U.K. phony   excuse for a war on oil …… more people died since than even Sadam was ever  responsible for , the whole Irak never recovered , while under Dictator Sadam  all quit , strong hand sometimes needed , he knew his people how to handle ….. Boris only know how to lie his own subjects...  5555

 

Ah...! politics & diplomacy   such a nice occupation ...

[david555]

11 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

So I am a bit more sober this evening but still having trouble understanding your position. It seems to me, that if the UK is running a trade deficit with the EU, then the EU stands a lot more to lose in a WTO situation than the UK does. It should be an order of magnitude easier for the UK to find a new supplier, than it would be for the EU to find a new customer.

 

I suppose, In the short term and as a percentage of total economy, it might be true that the UK will feel the pinch of the loss of the 28 billion in services it exports (because as you point out that makes up a bigger percentage of the total, even if smaller in absolute terms), but it would seem to me over time that the UK will have an easier job finding a new customer for 28 billion across the rest of the planet, than it will be for the EU to find a buyer for the lost 94 billion across the rest of the planet. 

 

And that advantage would seem to be magnified by the fact that services can be quickly retooled to meet the needs of a new market (and are completely and instantaneously responsive to currency devaluations), where as real goods need a buyer who wants to accept the products as produced (and need natural resources that don't necessarily get cheaper just because the economy wishes them to be).

 

I would think that all things being equal, the EU should be more worried about losing a net customer, than the UK would be about losing a vendor. Obviously there will be an adaptation period, but he longer that goes on, the more it would seem to benefit the UK relative to the EU.  At first glance it would seem it is the EU's best interest to conclude the deal as quickly as is humanly possible to keep the UK buying EU goods rather than allow the UK to source them somewhere else. It's always best to keep a customer rather than trying to find a new one.

 

 

 

 

Turn that last line to your direction for a consideration ….!

[Monomial]

2 minutes ago, david555 said:

Turn that last line to your direction for a consideration ….!

Don't understand. Please elaborate.

 

[david555]

6 minutes ago, Monomial said:

Don't understand. Please elaborate.

 

just that it is the same for u.k. it would be more difficult to find a supplier or a customer  …..is it so difficult see a case mirrored ? What count for one can count for the other too , in more or lesser 

Edited December 30, 2019 by david555

[3NUMBAS]

 a cliff edge brexit is coming then if they dont hurry up as no more swinging the lead

[Monomial]

14 minutes ago, david555 said:

just that it is the same for u.k. it would be more difficult to find a supplier or a customer  …..is it so difficult see a case mirrored ? What count for one can count for the other too , in more or lesser 

 

Sure. OK. Got it. Obviously. But we've already decided that the UK is a net purchaser. So while it would obviously be better to try and work a deal for services with the EU if that is possible within the constraints, that needs to be balanced by the bigger issues. On balance, the UK needs to negotiate as if it is the buyer and not the seller, since it buys much more than it sells. The EU, by contrast, needs to consider things from the opposite perspective.

 

[samran]

1 hour ago, Monomial said:

 

So I am a bit more sober this evening but still having trouble understanding your position. It seems to me, that if the UK is running a trade deficit with the EU, then the EU stands a lot more to lose in a WTO situation than the UK does. It should be an order of magnitude easier for the UK to find a new supplier, than it would be for the EU to find a new customer.

 

I suppose, In the short term and as a percentage of total economy, it might be true that the UK will feel the pinch of the loss of the 28 billion in services it exports (because as you point out that makes up a bigger percentage of the total, even if smaller in absolute terms), but it would seem to me over time that the UK will have an easier job finding a new customer for 28 billion across the rest of the planet, than it will be for the EU to find a buyer for the lost 94 billion across the rest of the planet. 

 

And that advantage would seem to be magnified by the fact that services can be quickly retooled to meet the needs of a new market (and are completely and instantaneously responsive to currency devaluations), where as real goods need a buyer who wants to accept the products as produced (and need natural resources that don't necessarily get cheaper just because the economy wishes them to be).

 

I would think that all things being equal, the EU should be more worried about losing a net customer, than the UK would be about losing a vendor. Obviously there will be an adaptation period, but he longer that goes on, the more it would seem to benefit the UK relative to the EU.  At first glance it would seem it is the EU's best interest to conclude the deal as quickly as is humanly possible to keep the UK buying EU goods rather than allow the UK to source them somewhere else. It's always best to keep a customer rather than trying to find a new one.

 

 

 

 

I’ve shared the links before so I won’t again, but the EU isn’t going to lose a customer.

 

UK treasury have already said that they will be setting minimal to no tariffs on imports into the UK. Deal or no deal. They are a bunch of uber free traders who’ll follow basic macro economic theory on this one. Free trade good, tariffs bad whatever the situation. I get <deleted> on this board for being too academic from the self proclaimed salt of the earth, master race types. One thing I do know is economists - and this is how they think. They hate tariffs. So do Tories. 
 

The EU doesn’t have to worry about losing the UK as a market. It’s the other way around which is the issue. 

Edited December 30, 2019 by samran