Post-Brexit - buying bike parts abroad . . (incl. Rose/DutchBikeParts)

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2358
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Post-Brexit - buying bike parts abroad . . (incl. Rose/DutchBikeParts)

Post by SA_SA_SA »

Are you saying the Eu trade deal requires hugely more eu to mainland uk checks than required under plain wto trading?
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Post-Brexit - buying bike parts abroad . . (incl. Rose/DutchBikeParts)

Post by Psamathe »

SA_SA_SA wrote:https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-protocol-checks-equate-to-20-of-total-undertaken-by-eu-40158174.html

My understanding is that there are two completely separate issues going on. GB has decided to delay import checks (which it can do as a sovereign nation) - because it is "not ready" (customs posts not built). So goods EU into GB wont be properly checked.

Completely separate are the GB/NI checks which were negotiated and UK Government agreed. So it either signed an international treaty without understanding what they were signing (and had negotiated) or they signed in bad faith. Either possibility shows the world the nature of our Government (in an unbelievably bad light). GB/NI is a very special case to address the issues created by NI not being an EU member state but having an open border with an EU member state. So to facilitate such a difficult border special case procedures have been put in place between Gb and NI as negotiated by Johnson/Westminster and as signed and ratified by Johnson/Westminster. So it can't really be compared to borders between EU countries nor with borders between EU and non member states. If Johnson does not like the deal he should not have negotiated nor signed it.

IAn
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4612
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Post-Brexit - buying bike parts abroad . . (incl. Rose/DutchBikeParts)

Post by slowster »

SA_SA_SA wrote:Unrelated but too many checks
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/n ... 58174.html

By way of illustration, our population is under half a percent of that across the European Union yet the documentary checks, according to the systems, completed so far would represent one fifth of the equivalent documentation right across the EU.”

He said that is because the protocol is affecting domestic food supply chains, whereas regulatory checks on EU imports are mainly bulk movements of international trade commodities.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Post-Brexit - buying bike parts abroad . . (incl. Rose/DutchBikeParts)

Post by Jdsk »

SA_SA_SA wrote:Are you saying the Eu trade deal requires hugely more eu to mainland uk checks than required under plain wto trading?

Is that addressed to me?

The Subject of this thread is buying bike parts abroad... your "unrelated" post is about trade between GB and NI...

Are you discussing UK to EU, EU to UK, GB to NI?

I don't see the relevance of WTO terms or any other terms which aren't in operation... I was discussing the terms which we've just agreed in a treaty and passed into domestic law and which affect buying bike parts from countries in the EU.

Jonathan
Last edited by Jdsk on 12 Mar 2021, 8:07pm, edited 1 time in total.
SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2358
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Post-Brexit - buying bike parts abroad . . (incl. Rose/DutchBikeParts)

Post by SA_SA_SA »

Jdsk wrote:
SA_SA_SA wrote:
Psamathe wrote:A massive benefit to EU companies and discriminating against UK companies. EU companies can get their goods into the UK really easily whilst UK companies face checks, delays, paperwork if they try and get their goods into the EU. And all thanks to the UK Government incapability and incompetence.

How about criticising the EU fir requiring more checks than necessary? Presumably the Uk will have to consider using the complaints procedure.

The EU rules are well known. The UK was involved in developing nearly all of them as a Member State. We chose to become a third country. We agreed a treaty a few months ago. We passed it into domestic law. One party's view of what's "necessary" has no legal weight, and would immediately be thrown out as a complaint with our signature highlighted. If we don't want to trade in line with the treaty provisions we shouldn't have agreed them... that's what sovereignty means.

Jonathan


But if the Eu commission is imposing more checks gb to eu direction than the deal requires or are using non tariff rules as trade barriers ( eg sps rules that exceed what is scientifically neccessary )why shouldn t an independant tribural find against them?
Last edited by SA_SA_SA on 15 Mar 2021, 9:22pm, edited 1 time in total.
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Post-Brexit - buying bike parts abroad . . (incl. Rose/DutchBikeParts)

Post by Psamathe »

SA_SA_SA wrote:
Jdsk wrote:
SA_SA_SA wrote:How about criticising the EU fir requiring more checks than necessary? Presumably the Uk will have to consider using the complaints procedure.

The EU rules are well known. The UK was involved in developing nearly all of them as a Member State. We chose to become a third country. We agreed a treaty a few months ago. We passed it into domestic law. One party's view of what's "necessary" has no legal weight, and would immediately be thrown out as a complaint with our signature highlighted. If we don't want to trade in line with the treaty provisions we shouldn't have agreed them... that's what sovereignty means.

Jonathan


But if the Eu is imposing more checks gb to eu direction than the deal requires or are using non tariff rules as trade barriers ( eg sps rules that exceed what is scientifically neccessary )why shouldn t an independant tribural find against them?

What are these "more checks" you are saying are being made? You need to note that very different goods are being imported GB to NI than would be possible e.g. GB to EU (e.g. supermarket fresh food). Also are issues with the way the UK logistics is running where a single lorry will often carry goods of many different types with different sources meaning a lot of paperwork - and one missing/incorrect declaration and i can't be allowed in. And from what I've seen their concerns are valid. So some examples of what these checks are that are not scientifically necessary and that were not negotiated with Johnson/Westminster.

Ian
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Post-Brexit - buying bike parts abroad . . (incl. Rose/DutchBikeParts)

Post by Jdsk »

SA_SA_SA wrote:
Jdsk wrote:
SA_SA_SA wrote:How about criticising the EU fir requiring more checks than necessary? Presumably the Uk will have to consider using the complaints procedure.

The EU rules are well known. The UK was involved in developing nearly all of them as a Member State. We chose to become a third country. We agreed a treaty a few months ago. We passed it into domestic law. One party's view of what's "necessary" has no legal weight, and would immediately be thrown out as a complaint with our signature highlighted. If we don't want to trade in line with the treaty provisions we shouldn't have agreed them... that's what sovereignty means.

But if the Eu is imposing more checks gb to eu direction than the deal requires or are using non tariff rules as trade barriers ( eg sps rules that exceed what is scientifically neccessary )why shouldn t an independant tribural find against them?

What you or anyone else thinks is "unnecessary" or not "scientifically necessary" is irrelevant. There's a brand new treaty which we signed. There's no point involving the dispute settlement procedures unless the allegation is that the terms of that treaty are being breached... that's a very different criterion from "unnecessary".

It's off-topic but what are these additional checks on trade in goods from the UK to the EU to which you refer?
Edited: Crossed with Ian's.

Jonathan
Last edited by Jdsk on 12 Mar 2021, 8:13pm, edited 1 time in total.
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4612
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Post-Brexit - buying bike parts abroad . . (incl. Rose/DutchBikeParts)

Post by slowster »

SA_SA_SA wrote:But if the Eu is imposing more checks gb to eu direction than the deal requires or are using non tariff rules as trade barriers ( eg sps rules that exceed what is scientifically neccessary )why shouldn t an independant tribural find against them?

If the EU is exceeding its powers and what is required under the deal, why isn't the UK government shouting about it and threatening to use the legal dispute mechanism?
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 5801
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Post-Brexit - buying bike parts abroad . . (incl. Rose/DutchBikeParts)

Post by roubaixtuesday »

SA_SA_SA wrote:
Jdsk wrote:
SA_SA_SA wrote:How about criticising the EU fir requiring more checks than necessary? Presumably the Uk will have to consider using the complaints procedure.

The EU rules are well known. The UK was involved in developing nearly all of them as a Member State. We chose to become a third country. We agreed a treaty a few months ago. We passed it into domestic law. One party's view of what's "necessary" has no legal weight, and would immediately be thrown out as a complaint with our signature highlighted. If we don't want to trade in line with the treaty provisions we shouldn't have agreed them... that's what sovereignty means.

Jonathan


But if the Eu is imposing more checks gb to eu direction than the deal requires or are using non tariff rules as trade barriers ( eg sps rules that exceed what is scientifically neccessary )why shouldn t an independant tribural find against them?


You seem to be arguing that we agree to SPS equivalence, which would mean us following EU regs and the ECJ or EFTA Court or equivalent adjudicating disputes.

That would indeed be an excellent way to protect and grow trade.

Unfortunately, it is explicitly against the "sovereignty first" FTA we have actually agreed.

Endless experts warned this would happen.

Leaving the EU then complaining that we're treated as having left the EU seems to be order of the day. It will doubtless go on as long as it buys jingoistic newspaper headlines.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Post-Brexit - buying bike parts abroad . . (incl. Rose/DutchBikeParts)

Post by Jdsk »

roubaixtuesday wrote:You seem to be arguing that we agree to SPS equivalence, which would mean us following EU regs and the ECJ or EFTA Court or equivalent adjudicating disputes.

That would indeed be an excellent way to protect and grow trade.

Unfortunately, it is explicitly against the "sovereignty first" FTA we have actually agreed.

Endless experts warned this would happen.

And the Environment Secretary knew the rules despite his subsequent "surprise" and misleading statements.
https://westcountrybylines.co.uk/the-truth-about-the-shellfish-ban-an-oysterman-debunks-govt-misinformation/

Jonathan
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Post-Brexit - buying bike parts abroad . . (incl. Rose/DutchBikeParts)

Post by Jdsk »

Now... back to bike parts from Member States of the EU to the UK.

Imagine that you're one of those suppliers who has stopped supplying to the UK.

The UK has put off implementation of border controls until January 2022. Does that encourage you to find ways to restart supplies... you've got a prolonged grace period in which to sort this out? Or do you choose to wait a bit and see what happens... they might change the rules before then?

Jonathan
SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2358
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Post-Brexit - buying bike parts abroad . . (incl. Rose/DutchBikeParts)

Post by SA_SA_SA »

roubaixtuesday wrote:You seem to be arguing that we agree to SPS equivalence, which would mean us following EU regs and the ECJ or EFTA Court or equivalent adjudicating disputes.

That would indeed be an excellent way to protect and grow trade.

Unfortunately, it is explicitly against the "sovereignty first" FTA we have actually agreed.

Endless experts warned this would happen.



No, just that sps checks are required to be the minimum scientifically required otherwise they are being mis used as a trade barrier.

Edit: edited out wrong surrounding quote
Last edited by SA_SA_SA on 12 Mar 2021, 9:06pm, edited 1 time in total.
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Post-Brexit - buying bike parts abroad . . (incl. Rose/DutchBikeParts)

Post by Jdsk »

SA_SA_SA wrote:
Jdsk wrote:
roubaixtuesday wrote:You seem to be arguing that we agree to SPS equivalence, which would mean us following EU regs and the ECJ or EFTA Court or equivalent adjudicating disputes.

That would indeed be an excellent way to protect and grow trade.

Unfortunately, it is explicitly against the "sovereignty first" FTA we have actually agreed.

Endless experts warned this would happen.

And the Environment Secretary knew the rules despite his subsequent "surprise" and misleading statements.
https://westcountrybylines.co.uk/the-truth-about-the-shellfish-ban-an-oysterman-debunks-govt-misinformation/

No, just that sps checks are required to be the minimum scientifically required otherwise they are being mis used as a trade barrier.

Is that "No" in answer to roubaixtuesday's post or mine?

Is the UK Government alleging that they are being misused?

Thanks

Jonathan
User avatar
Ride-sleep-repeat
Posts: 382
Joined: 24 Nov 2020, 11:58am

Re: Post-Brexit - buying bike parts abroad . . (incl. Rose/DutchBikeParts)

Post by Ride-sleep-repeat »

Not bike but car parts.
Ordered from a site in Romania Tuesday.Quoted (laptop)€980 shipping for a €23 part :lol:
Tried on my phone and it was €14.11 shipping so paid €37.11.Received UPS tracking info Wednesday,delivered Thursday.If only they did bike parts as that's quicker than CRC/Wiggle etc.
SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2358
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Post-Brexit - buying bike parts abroad . . (incl. Rose/DutchBikeParts)

Post by SA_SA_SA »

Psamathe wrote:
SA_SA_SA wrote:https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-protocol-checks-equate-to-20-of-total-undertaken-by-eu-40158174.html

My understanding is that there are two completely separate issues going on. GB has decided to delay import checks (which it can do as a sovereign nation) - because it is "not ready" (customs posts not built). So goods EU into GB wont be properly checked.

Completely separate are the GB/NI checks which were negotiated and UK Government agreed. So it either signed an international treaty without understanding what they were signing (and had negotiated) or they signed in bad faith. Either possibility shows the world the nature of our Government (in an unbelievably bad light). GB/NI is a very special case to address the issues created by NI not being an EU member state but having an open border with an EU member state. So to facilitate such a difficult border special case procedures have been put in place between Gb and NI as negotiated by Johnson/Westminster and as signed and ratified by Johnson/Westminster. So it can't really be compared to borders between EU countries nor with borders between EU and non member states. If Johnson does not like the deal he should not have negotiated nor signed it.

IAn

But the protocol isn't fixed, eg article 16, thats why it has a joint committee, so it was reasonable for the UK government to take the EU commissions claim to view N Ireland as special, at face value, and assume they(the eu) would, like them, thus interpret the protocol in a reasonable manner, to minimise checks, and respond to problems.

It is the Eu commission that has been acting in bad faith to Northern Ireland. If it was interested in N Irelands well being the eu commissions response to Britain acting to safeguard an internal part of itself wouldnt be legal action, and that after it itself instigated article 16 to block vaccines...
Last edited by SA_SA_SA on 15 Mar 2021, 9:23pm, edited 1 time in total.
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)
Post Reply