1/ A few people have pointed out this paragraph in the UK's readout of the Australia-UK FTA Agreement in Principle and asked whether it means the UK will be accepting Australian standards after all👇
We obviously don't have the text, but my judgement is that's NOT what it means.
We obviously don't have the text, but my judgement is that's NOT what it means.
2/ Recognition of SPS measures is a pretty common thing to see in Free Trade Agreements.
Typically it's used when both sides have their own versions of laws that do the EXACT same thing.
So the agreement basically says, "Your law banning Y is as good as our law banning Y."
Typically it's used when both sides have their own versions of laws that do the EXACT same thing.
So the agreement basically says, "Your law banning Y is as good as our law banning Y."
3/ Here's an example from CETA (Canada - EU FTA):
As you can see it lists specific EU regulations and matches them with specific Canadian laws, and then says that with some exceptions, they're considered equivalent.
As you can see it lists specific EU regulations and matches them with specific Canadian laws, and then says that with some exceptions, they're considered equivalent.
4/ What's really important here is that these laws/regulations DO THE SAME THING.
This kind of recognition isn't used to say "Your law allowing hormones is like our law banning them."
Instead it's used for, "Your law banning this hormone is like our law banning this hormone."
This kind of recognition isn't used to say "Your law allowing hormones is like our law banning them."
Instead it's used for, "Your law banning this hormone is like our law banning this hormone."
5/ What does this achieve?
Basically it's a way of reducing compliance and testing burden at the border.
If you accept that the other side bans a substance just as hard as you do, you may not need to check for it as carefully (fewer checks = cheaper = faster borders).
Basically it's a way of reducing compliance and testing burden at the border.
If you accept that the other side bans a substance just as hard as you do, you may not need to check for it as carefully (fewer checks = cheaper = faster borders).
6/ Could this pose a risk to UK standards anyway?
It's theoretically possible (though nigh unheard of in FTAs) to grant equivalency recognition to laws that are narrower in scope than your own, or more loosely enforced.
Can't rule it out but unlikely.
It's theoretically possible (though nigh unheard of in FTAs) to grant equivalency recognition to laws that are narrower in scope than your own, or more loosely enforced.
Can't rule it out but unlikely.
7/ What will this mean for easing EU border checks and the NIP?
Way too early to say.
We need to know:
1⃣ What are the equivalencies in the deal?
2⃣ Do they significantly reduce testing compared to what the EU does?
3⃣ What is the EU offering the Aussies in EU-Aus FTA?
Way too early to say.
We need to know:
1⃣ What are the equivalencies in the deal?
2⃣ Do they significantly reduce testing compared to what the EU does?
3⃣ What is the EU offering the Aussies in EU-Aus FTA?
8/ "But Dmitry, you neoliberal Australian Tim Tam shill 5th columnist, how can you say any of that with confidence without having read the text?"
Fair. I can't tell you precisely what's in this deal, but I can say how other agreements have handled this.
Fair. I can't tell you precisely what's in this deal, but I can say how other agreements have handled this.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
