FYI: Third country listing is an administrative precursor in a multi-tier system. Indicates that a country has the systems in place which will enable conformity. The next tier down is approval of individual establishments, and down from that is the processing/inspection regime.
The listing implies best endeavours to ensure that conformity with the conditions of listing will be maintained. The lower two tiers are implemented by the competent authorities of the exporting state, so the EU has to satisfy itself that the state has the capability to do so.
If the UK is signalling it intends to change its standards, with a likelihood of non-conformity, then the EU would be reluctant to list it. It's like putting your car in for an MoT and telling the garage you intend to cut the brake pipes the moment the car has its certificate.
This is a three-tier system: (1) Listing; (2) Approval of establishments; (3) process controls and inspection at point of origin. Depending on the the extent of (3), border controls can be reduced (as is the case with NZ lamb), but they are never eliminated.
EU doesn't do mutual recognition. The system can allow "equivalence" where the EU (in the context of an FTA) will accept that the exporting states rules are equivalent to its own - on a case-by-case basis. Applies to NZ lamb where the regime is much tougher than the EU regime.
The point at issue is that (2) & (3) are carried out by the competent authority of the exporting state. In listing a state, therefore, the EU has to assure itself that the competent authority has the ability, the resources and the commitment to enforce EU standards.
Even if the first two apply, if the state lacks the commitment, then the EU would not be happy with listing it. The UK shouldn't complain. The system was devised by the UK and copied by the EU post Aberdeen Typhoid Outbreak.
The EU's willingness to list might be influenced by wider trade relations. For instance, where an FTA deals with regulatory harmonisation, the fact of an agreement at that level would enable the EU to list the country, because it has a mechanism for ensuring ongoing conformity.
Being that there is presently no progress, and the UK has yet to propose a model for state aid the EU can recognise, and won't offer certainty as to food regulations, the listing is in doubt. That is entirely the fault of the UK.
As to NI ... for the purpose of the Protocol, the NI remains in the Single Market. Therefore, entry of GB goods into NI requires conformity with SM rules. Obviously, the closer the UK is to meeting SM rules, the easier it is to export. We really should have stayed in the EEA.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with The Leave Alliance

The Leave Alliance Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @LeaveHQ

16 Sep
1. Methinks the Tory no deal plan B involves junking the WA with a view to weakening Ireland's place in the single market. The #InternalMarketBill essentially grants the UK government licence to place goods on the EU single market without authorisation. ...
2. It is assumed Ireland is then forced to put controls along the border - but it won't, invested so much politically in saying that can't happen. Instead it will institute certain behind the border controls notionally for the entire union, but in practice only for Ireland.
3. More than likely this will result in more stringent checks for goods travelling between Ireland and the mainland EU, instituting a market surveillance system where trucks will be inspected on the basis of risk. They'll soon work out which regular loads are kosher.
Read 12 tweets
15 Sep
I suppose we need a thread on why this is complete baloney, so here goes...
The UK can't actually be listed until it is a third country. Therefore, it could not expect to be listed until we had left. In the event, the UK would only require listing from 1 January 2021.
The technical criteria for listing are set out in statutes, with a number of working documents, and well-understood. HMG should have had all its ducks neatly lined up so as to make the application a trouble-free process.
Read 7 tweets
14 Sep
1. An FTA does not provide for internal market concepts (in the area of goods) such as mutual recognition, the ‘country of origin principle’, and harmonisation. Nor does an FTA remove customs formalities and controls, including those concerning the origin of goods.

2. There are additional instruments such as mutual recognition of conformity assessment but that is contingent on a level of equivalence - essentially the same rules or better. This, though, is far beyond the "Canada style deal" asked for by the Tories.
3. For the EU to entertain any such requests they would need firm guarantees on LPF as well as the UK outlining what rules it will use and commit to direct consultation on any changes. This includes state aid.
Read 18 tweets
13 Sep
This vote effectively nullifies the NI protocol. They are voting to ignore the customs procedures they agreed to uphold. This is not "limited and specific". This is wholesale abandonment of the rule of treaty law.

Seems they never understood or didn't read the Notices to Stakeholders (below). They assumed a trade deal would remove the sea border. Now the penny has dropped and they're back pedalling.
It looks like they've ignored the NTSs, believing them to be some kind of negotiating ploy, and instead they've listened to Snake Oil Singham who bleats about mutual recognition of standards (which the EU doesn't do). They've deceived themselves and come a cropper.
Read 18 tweets
10 Sep
1. Some have accused The Leave Alliance of being a "remainer troll account". This is both offensive and inaccurate. We are a leave campaign - but we did not swear an oath of loyalty to the Tories or the #Brexit Party. We owe them nothing. We seek to uphold the values of Brexit.
2. The referendum of 2016 was to decide whether we leave or remain in the EU. Nothing more, nothing less. There was never a plan or a consensus on what should happen after. Brexiteers don't own that. That must be an inclusive debate. The principle of self-determination.
3. For an age, the United Kingdom has freely engaged as an independent country in alliances and treaties with other countries. It has a long history of entering into commercial agreements and conventions at an inter-governmental level. We wish to uphold that tradition.
Read 16 tweets
9 Sep
The Tories are trading on old divisions. Johnson pulling that "Starmer is a remainer" shtick is old hat. When jobs dry up and food gets expensive, Johnson will find that voters can be as fickle as he is. What worked in the last parliament won't cut it after January.
Corbyn was always the "backstop" for the Tories. So long as he was in place they could keep abusing their power without consequence. They haven't quite adjusted to the new reality. Like Wile E Coyote running over the cliff, they haven't looked down yet.
The Tories must know by now that Johnson is a spent man. They know he has to go even if they're not yet publicly admitting it. But who have they got to replace him who isn't tainted? When it comes to political talent, the cupboard is bare.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!