No, I’m saying that leaving the EU but staying in the single market - which is effectively what will have to happen as a hard border is impossible (at least while Northern Ireland remains in the UK and the Republic in the EU) - is stupid, as doing so would leave us with no say in the rules that bind us. Just not quite as stupid as leaving the single market entirely.
It’s feasible, the only thing that would be required is to ensure things are labelled with country of origin, so people can make an informed choice about which standards they feel are appropriate. Enforcing unnecessarily high standards for the sake of giving civil servants something to do is not economically sensible.
Good thing that’s not why they do it, then.
As I have said, I am not an EU expert, but this makes sense to me. I agree with you on the quoted portion. There is no reason why a single market with free movement of people must have the same currency or the same standards. If Finland, for example, has lower inspection standards than the rest of the EU then simply require the product to be labeled that it is from Finland and let EU consumers decide if they wish to purchase Finnish goods.
This isn’t a Libertarian argument for no standards at all and let the public take a chance on dying. These are all first world nations and we can trust that they have at least reasonable quality controls on products. I don’t see the need for the bloated bureaucracy which attempts to make EU countries like U.S. states and cede their national sovereignty to Brussels.
As far as the “backstop” I am still trying to understand it but none of the websites I have read have really given a good explanation of the problem. IIUC, Ireland will remain part of the EU, but Northern Ireland as part of the UK would leave causing a hard border to be erected between the two. Also, from what I have read, nobody wishes that hard border to be erected.
So why not just have the parties agree that no border will be erected? What am I missing?
Okay, but it isn’t an option anyway.
You are naive if you think that’s not one of the reasons for it. Why else would they enforce unnecessarily high standards?
It’s the only option under which we can leave without breaking the Good Friday Agreement, and is exactly what the backstop will enforce. That’s why it’s so controversial with those who want to leave.
What’s your benchmark for “necessary” and why is it better than others’?
Also, which creates more work for civil servants: having one standard or having multiple standards in the same marketplace for similar products which are dependent on the origin of the products being sold?
Because many of those here that wish to leave the EU want that hard border, or at least want things that can only come from a hard border - such as the right to set our own standards, among other things.
The only option that’s consistent with our international obligations would be to have a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, and that would almost certainly be politically hugely unpopular at minimum, and lead to more violence and terrorism at worst.
Leaving without a hard border is a bad idea in my opinion, as I explained before, as it would mean that we get absolutely none of the gains of leaving.
I’m not the one claiming that my standard is better, I’m saying that it’s fine to have differing ones.
The same amount, presumably. Each country would enforce the standards on the products they produce, and it would be up to consumers to decide if they trust the standards or enforcement. It would be a freer market than currently, which would be a good thing.
This only works in a world where everyone has perfect information and the desire to seek quality above convenience/necessity. Fact is, most people will look at the price, and if the price difference is because the imported product uses an untested ingredient that has unpleasant side-effects, then the result is a) people suffer those side-effects and b) the higher quality local stuff has to compete downwards, adopting such dangerous ingredients.
Regulations exist for public safety. I - and I guess the EU - don’t share your blind faith in the invisible hand of the market.
Says you. I’d rather not take my chances with American chlorine-washed chicken, and the undermining of the British meat industry risked by a trade deal with the US.
International law. WTO membership requires a border between countries that don’t have trade deals in place. The alternative is having no control over what slop enters your country.
I apologize, but I am still not following. Let’s say that the U.S. and Canada decide to eliminate the hard border. No more checkpoints, no more passports required, every person in either country can come and go as they please. However, the citizens cannot stay in the other country, work in the other country, etc. and there are rules to prevent that.
Why would such an arrangement mean that neither the U.S. nor Canada can set their own standards and do those other things?
And how’s that supposed to work in practice? I mean, I go to the local shop, are they going to have tomatoes grown to multiple different standards, so I can pick the regulation level I like best? Are we expecting everyone to memorise, say, what pesticides are legal in each country, how many rat hairs are permitted?
For the everyday consumer, it wouldn’t improve choice, it would potentially increase risk. For example, treatment with sulphur dioxide is legal for crops in some countries, but it can trigger allergic reactions- which is part of why it’s banned in the EU. OK, you can check the pack in a shop, see where it’s from and check allergy labelling, but in a salad from a cafe? Allowing multiple different food safety standards within one country is a recipe for disaster.
The EU won’t allow such an agreement, for one thing. The Good Friday Agreement would prevent us from having an agreement with the Republic where people can’t reside or work in either country. And I think, although I’m open to correction on it, that without an agreement the WTO rules would mean there would have to either be a hard border, or both sides would have to have completely open borders.
Basically, the EU will not allow the UK to have the benefits of membership without the responsibilities, which include free movement and working rights. Theoretically that could change, but politically there is absolutelt no chance - the EU would literally collapse before it happened.
In short, the agreement that ended most of the violence in Northern Ireland (as well as the Republic and the rest of the UK), and which meant that the Republic Of Ireland ended its claim to the North, relies on us being in the EU.
That’s your mistake, right there. (For completeness, I’m agreeing vigorously with the other points you are making). Products aren’t made in single countries. Even products as conceptually simple as a car or a meal in a restaurant. For a man who opposes needless bureaucracy, insisting that every single thing which is traded must come with documentation which accurately states the source of every single component is bizarre. I can’t even picture a world in which that approach is remotely feasible. Freer, it would not be.
It’s not just the end consumer who would struggle. A big part of the efficiency of this single market is that a business can buy its source materials and components without worrying about basic standards, and then sell on to the next business in the chain without them worrying about your standards.
I don’t know if it is true, but there was a story that a pint of Guinness sold in Dublin has crossed the UK border (*) four times. If sold in London, five times. How could differential standards for beer production even apply in this case?
Free markets depend on efficient regulation and standards. A choice of 28 (or more) different standards in a market is not efficient.
- you know what, I’m not going to call it the Irish border any more. That’s completely misleading.
Or, just perhaps, people would prefer cheaper food that is still perfectly safe (such as the chicken you mention) rather than paying more for unnecessary standards that affect quality, not safety. Look at all the bullshit around glyphosate recently, for example. It’s repeatedly been proven to be absolutely safe (assuming you use it as a weedkiller rather than a beverage), but people want to ban it because they don’t like Monsanto.
They can set their own standards still, but having no border means they can’t guarantee their citizens a certain level of standards, nor can they be accountable for it.
How do countries ensure food standards? They regulate the industry and expect people who produce food for business to follow those rules and be subject to inspections.
Additionally, they make trade deals with other countries, that ensure mutual recognition of standards - that is, Canada and the US have looked at each other’s books of regulations, deemed both the regulatory standard to be sufficient and that the framework for enforcement is reliable. Therefore, in certain products, the US and Canada can permit a degree of freedom because they know they’re not exposing their citizens to unnecessary risk. But they still need to check shipments to ensure the agreement is being kept.
And if there is a food scare - say, something like the UK’s BSE crisis in the '90s - then there can be stoppages, remedies, new regulations and enforcement. The new regime would have to be studied by the US/Canada, to ensure they have confidence in it, and can permit the trade deal to resume.
Let’s say they open the border. What happens if a Canadian businessman opts to put antifreeze in his wine and sell it to the US, and tries to avoid regulation in Canada by not producing any for the home market? Or perhaps Canadian regulation enforcement isn’t getting the funding it once did, and lets standards slip?
With no border controls, the US exposes wine drinkers to health problems.
So, border controls are essential, unless you create something like the EU.
Chlorinated chicken is not ‘perfectly safe’. The rate of food poisoning incidents is far higher in the US than in the EU. The problem is, while chlorine can kill bacteria, many producers don’t do it rigorously enough, and incompletely sterilised produce is released onto the market.
When you travel to other countries, do you pack your own food beforehand? I assume you don’t and I further assume that you act like most travelers. If you are in a sufficiently modern country like Canada, the U.S., the UK, the EU, etc. you trust that these countries are sufficiently developed to have a food inspection regime in place that protects the public. Maybe it is slightly stronger or slightly weaker than your home country, but you have no cause for concern.
Why should it be different in the EU?
Any company that’s producing something should know and document where everything comes from. I’ve just looked in my fridge, and all the meat and vegetables have the country of origin listed, so it can’t be that difficult. As for restaurants, I would hope that anything above the level of MacDonalds would be able to tell you what farm all the main ingredients came from, or at least what butcher.