Article 13: UK will not implement EU copyright law
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
The UK will shortly be trying to salvage as much of its trading and regulatory relationship with Europe as it can. I’d expect to see promises like this quietly dropped.
Rhetoric: Noun: Verbal communication : Discourse
In politics rhetoric refers to the arguments communicated, not the views themselves. People you agree with also have rhetoric.
To the extent it has a negative connotation, that is because many arguments (even for good policies) are terrible.
But early days, let's see how that actually pans out, people saying one thing and not doing; That is `rhetoric`. Actually delivering it, a rare thing in today's times.
As for this Article 13 EU Law - not a bad one to not adopt as many a debate has extolled when the law was first mooted.
Is it just an easy low-hanging fruit to enable other less socially palatable laws to be ignored - not impossible at all, but without time we can only speculate from perspective.
[EDIT - formatting and extra S removed]
I imagine most companies will end up setting up EU-domiciled subsidiaries to minimise barriers, but who knows ultimately!
They signalled earlier that they are not going to align themselves with EU regulatory apparatus - this was to indicate to the EU that they were not going for the 'tight integration' approach, which is important because it was assumed by many this would be the UK position.
The UK is seeking to have an independent regulatory system, obviously, this means many things vis-a-vis relationships with the EU. Many products will naturally have to comply with regulations, just as any UK company selling kit in the US or Brazil has to align their products with those regimes.
But in reality, obviously, this will evolve given any specific advantages that might present themselves.
But it's also impossible to tell what is a 'negotiating posture' vs. what is their real, intended posture, and that's very much on purpose.
My bet is that the end result will be something like NAFTA/USMCA.
In the next 12 months, the public won’t be able to believe a single word coming from government that might involve (even tangentially) trade negotiations.
It's too disturbing to contemplate what the state of the establishment, civil service, judiciary and all the other checks and balances will be at the end of five years.
Except that Germany is one of the biggest political forces in the EU, and what they're doing a lot of the rest will be pressured to follow...
It seems the most prominent use the EU is regularly put to, is as a scapegoat to blame for bad laws. These are sponsored and promoted by cabals of national governments on the European level, in order to shirk their responsibility to their sovereigns, the national voters.
They're vague, undefined, create criminal penalties, don't understand what harms are, create an incentive to shut down speech on the basis of risk management and will be enforced entirely arbitrarily.
But as a reminder, a good amount of Labour (S&D) and Tories (ECR) voted for the directive https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/b6puyx/thats_how_ev... so it is possible something might be brought at the HoC level
So on many levels, a very cunning move and certainly opens up EU trade negotiations to cater for divergance by grabbing a low hanging fruit.
But will this effect trade with the EU and trade deals - not that much, if at all.
Can anybody name a UK company that this law effects that solely or majority trades with the EU? Asking as this seems more about content and most/near all content providers are global and would be versed in regional variations on regulations.
Germany has a proposal that I doubt will go anywhere, but who knows, maybe they will, judging by their ignorance of anything Internet related.
Other countries don't seem to have any information available.
I seriously hope Eastern European leaders aren't dumb enough to implement something that would send their online tech sectors to the grave... But again, who knows
Anyone from EU have some information about this?
Other nations too should learn from UK here.
Bear in mind that the UK will still essentially have to comply with things like GDPR and other European regulation if it wishes to continue doing business in Europe - particularly in the services sector.
This is not just hyperbolic, it's false.
Since most nations 'outside the EU' like Norway, Switzerland, or even Canada, the US, Australia are not comparable to 'being sanctioned' I suggest you're going to have a hard time making your case.
Norway and Switzerland are in the EU from an economic PoV (they're in the single market). Hell, they're even in Schengen.
Canada, US, Aus never had a closer trading relationship with the EU that they opted to leave.
Both the USA and Australia already have trade deals with the EU. The UK does not, and will not for probably years. International negotiation isn't a simple weekend thing like the Tory party keep trying to persuade the ever-gullible UK electorate.
So that's potentially years with nothing. WTO rules. Effectively self-sanctioning to a position far worse than now, and placing a severe cap on potential. Businesses with sense, or heavy EU dependency will leave, in droves. I would expect Toyota and possibly BMW to be probable early exits.
We could, I suppose, get a miracle of a fast agreement, but 26 nations have power of veto, and GB's negotiating team has not shown anything resembling flexibility or any apparent clue how negotiating works.
The EU and UK will continue to trade on some kind of terms on most goods and services until a deal is worked out. It will take longer than one year, but the UK-imposed 'deadline' is highly rational, and good for both sides, because nothing ever happens on the 'difficult issues' until both sides are up against a wall and are forced to 'show their cards'.
The 'one-year' milestone people should understand not as the point wherein negotiations end, but rather when the hard negotiation begins.
They will keep the status quo until that wrestling match is done.
In the first instance NO countries trade solely on WTO default terms. None. Every country has better than WTO arrangements with someone, even North Korea who aren't even in the WTO. Perhaps their local neighbours and major trade partners, even if they don't necessarily have a deal with the EU (or China or USA).
On WTO terms we'd need to negotiate tariff agreements with the WTO on potentially hundreds of categories of products which is going to take at least as long as an EU-UK treaty. As frequently reported, goods and services to and from the EU will be subject to import duties. For any of the numerous industries where that may happen multiple times, e.g. car manufacture, the effect would be disastrous.
Second we'll lose all trade agreements with other nations that we have had as a result of being within the EU, e.g. with Canada, the US, South Korea, etc, etc. So we'll have no improved relationship with anyone at all. It remains to be seen if claims of interim arrangements are anything other than empty rhetoric, so we still potentially face that cliff edge in Dec 2020.
Third we'd lose the unrestricted single market right to provide services (including financial) across the EU without discrimination and fall back to only WTO terms. That's likely to completely change viability of numerous successful UK businesses. Including some of the largest.
If you want to export/import out of the country then you're going to need to follow all EU guidelines anyway. So all the UK has done is remove itself from the decision making process of rules businesses still have to operate under.
Nonsense, the EU is just one of many potential trade partners and it does business with plenty of exporters who aren't forced to operate under EU rules.
At least online business/services won't be affected, I hope.
That's quite rich, ain't it? It's OK, after Brexit UK will become a colony of US anyway since they will rapidly do bi trading deals and implement US style anyway. You know, the style that allowed stuff to halt for 20 years because Disney want it in 1999.
What? No.
You could make a fun argument that colonizing America had a similar kind of effect on Britain.
You are aware that the copyright extension law was passed in the US to align it with the EU's length, right?
But I'm sure Donald Duck and Jafar from Alladin don't like him much either.