Brexit discussion thread II

Sam Russell

What will the EU do if the UK refuses to control exports from NI to Ireland? Would it be likely that Calais might become a little more difficult for them?

The UK can use their magical cameras to distinguish NI goods from EU goods at the ports - no problem with that, but it is the imports from the UK into NI that is the problem. Will the refuse to do any checks? Would they voluntarily exclude agricultural products?

I cannot see any possible solution unless NI remains within the SM and CU as agriculture is too important to the NI economy.

Remember, NI gets huge subventions from UK and EU.

kowtow

ambro25 wrote: »

The problem is achieving regulatory compliance without a hard border.

Can you elaborate on that?

In my simplistic way I see the border as a two part problem. Trade requires a known party to declare the goods - including presumably the country of origin and therefore the regulatory status - and enforcement requires knowledge of a crossing taking place (the movement of a vehicle) and checks on a proportion - probably quite a small proportion - of those movements to ensure that the goods being carried correspond precisely to the related electronic declaration.

In the meantime duties are levied by whichever party on the declaration.

The concept of an electronic border without infrastructure simply means that vehicles are checked, if they are to be checked, at a place or places remote from the border itself. The obvious assumption is that customs from each side of the border are able to perform checks on the other side of the border at specified points or within a specified area, and that the data required to effect those checks is shared. I think I'm right in saying that is the solution in Norway and some other points in the EU.

It is obvious that the most friction free place to carry out the bulk of physical checks would be the ports themselves, conceivably on both sides of the border. It is equally obvious that the adverse effects of any porosity in such a border would more often be contained upon the Island of Ireland, which might be a price worth paying for both sides. Clearly the better the solution the smaller this problem would be in the end.

Proposing that NI remain in the Customs Union, whilst ideal for Ireland, is inflammatory and was never, surely, intended to be taken seriously.

So if the EU - and Irish - position is that without the NI remaining in the Customs Union there will have to be a hard brexit and a hard border and damn the English to hell for making it happen, then so be it - we should be crystal clear and not waste any more time on negotiation on either side.

Anything other than that and it isn't just the UK playing poker with the Northern Irish settlement, but the EU as well - unless both sides really do mean to get down to designing some kind of joint solution of the sort described above.

What exactly, and realistically, do you think Irish and EU negotiators expect to get in return for the current impasse? Do you honestly think we will see NI inside the CU?

Nody

kowtow wrote: »

Can you elaborate on that?

In my simplistic way I see the border as a two part problem. Trade requires a known party to declare the goods - including presumably the country of origin and therefore the regulatory status - and enforcement requires knowledge of a crossing taking place (the movement of a vehicle) and checks on a proportion - probably quite a small proportion - of those movements to ensure that the goods being carried correspond precisely to the related electronic declaration.

Checks will make up 40%+ of the trucks for anything food related in the 6+ first months as UK can not, and will not, be recognised until at least 6 months have passed as per EU law and in a no deal scenario we'd talk 100% custom checks. Those also include the requirement to sample the goods if there is not a suitable authority in country that's recognised that issue certification of compliance of EU regulation to reduce those checks (currently UK does not have such functions which needs to be set up from scratch inc. legal authority to issue the certificates etc.). To give you an idea on the levels required for regulatory status most companies prefer to pay 5% duties over complying with them as that's easier and UK has zero regulatory status with EU when they become third party country. From that point any FTA needs to see in what areas there may be regulatory equality that EU will recognise and that regulatory equality will only apply as long as it's updated to reflect the EU legal requirements or it will stop. To date EU even countries that fulfil EU's regulatory requirements for imports still has to go through random customs inspections but they drop from 40%+ down towards 5% instead (and of course those customs check has to be paid as a fee to be executed). What does this mean? Well take a car exported by UK on 1st April; that car now needs to be fully certified that it meets EU requirements (as all previous UK certifications are worthless the moment UK leaves EU as they are no longer recognised) as there is no certification from EU and until it is fully certified it will remain at the border waiting.

In the meantime duties are levied by whichever party on the declaration.

The sending/receiving party can't levy duties; they need a customs office or a custom partner to do this which require them to show up at the border, go to the relevant customs office to get it stamped and then proceed and the customs agent then pays the duties to the state on behalf of the importer directly. That's the most positive outcome and is how the Swiss border works.

The concept of an electronic border without infrastructure simply means that vehicles are checked, if they are to be checked, at a place or places remote from the border itself.

This does not work because nothing stops the truck from stopping on the way and reloading something else. That is why it has to be checked at the border because the truck may need to be refused entry due to not carrying relevant documents and not be allowed to risk contamination into the country.

I think I'm right in saying that is the solution in Norway and some other points in the EU.

You would be wrong; the border checks for both Norway and Switzerland are just that, at the border literally speaking. Taking truck going to Switzerland as example it would need to come in at a specific border crossing with the custom agent we work with, take the paperwork they received when loading to the customs office to get it verified and stamped before they would be allowed driving on. Failure to get the goods stamp would results in huge penalties (six figure) for the importing company and failure to bring the papers means the truck is stuck there until a new set can be issued; this can easily take weeks. Now if this flows smoothly you're still talking a 25 min wait per truck or so to get parked, get stamped, get back out and up to speed. Now if they need further checks such as weight, random police controls, queue etc. the stop time only increases from there. At Christmas time for example we have had trucks waiting days as the customs office simply closed and they can't leave/enter without said stamp or they will need to drive back to the office to get it. And yes we've had to send trucks back from UK warehouses to Switzerland to collect such a stamp without being allowed to unload anything from the truck...

So if the EU - and Irish - position is that without the NI remaining in the Customs Union there will have to be a hard brexit and a hard border and damn the English to hell for making it happen, then so be it - we should be crystal clear and not waste any more time on negotiation on either side.

This is UK's decision by ruling out any CU or single market access; without that UK becomes a third party country like Nigeria or Chile and all imports have to be treated accordingly. Failure by EU to do so would open them up to WTO litigation of favouritism which means anything given to UK as a third party country has to be given to every other country in the world as well. This is what we've been pointing out from the start by Remainers which has been ignored by Brexiteers as fearmongering.

What exactly, and realistically, do you think Irish and EU negotiators expect to get in return for the current impasse? Do you honestly think we will see NI inside the CU?

UK caused the problem by declaring they want to become a third party country; now UK gets to figure out how they are going to square that with the legal requirement of border controls under WTO terms that they love to quote as the solution to a no deal with EU scenario. I'll give a hint; they will go hard border because legally they have to or they will have to accept all imports from every country in the world without any border controls. You see WTO terms are very simple; what ever you offer to one country you have to offer to all other WTO countries (most favourable trade terms) unless you strike some form of bilateral trade agreement (and even those can be challenged). Hence if UK decides to declare the border open to Ireland all other countries in the world has the right to demand the same thing for all their imports and UK are not allowed to perform any controls on those goods that they don't perform on the Irish border as well.

In the end what will kill UK export to EU is not the tariffs; it's the lack of recognised regulation authorities; exactly the same that Canada exporters found with a 93% tariff free FTA signed with EU.

swampgas

The political problem (as I see it) is that Theresa May's declaration that Brexit meant leaving the SM and CU also meant that she was also abandoning the GFA, but she either didn't realise that or didn't want to admit it at the time. She might have been better off being straight about it, instead of hiding behind vague aspirational platitudes about not wanting a border with Ireland.

The EU/Irish govt's position on the NI border wouldn't be such an issue for the UK if the UK hadn't been so dishonest about their true intentions in the first place.

wes

Sam Russell wrote: »

What will the EU do if the UK refuses to control exports from NI to Ireland?

The UK would be sued via the WTO, not sure how that work exactly, but what there doing would violate WTO rules, and my understanding is that it would leave them open to law suits not just from the EU, but other WTO members.

They pretty much have to enforce the border.

What there doing is a blaming exercise and nothing more imo. There decision will result in a hard border, as per WTO rules.

Only way to avoid that is cancel Brexit, stay in the single market, stay in the customs union, the North stays in the customs union. The UK has ruled all those out, so there will be a hard border.

kowtow

If you are all correct in your assumptions, then there is only one way for this to go which is a hard Brexit and a hard border on the Irish side at least - probably the UK side as well, with Irish / UK relations damaged badly on top of the worst case scenario for trade between the two countries.

I hope for everybody's sake that this does not turn out to be the case, being able to blame one side or another doesn't seem like much compensation for the long term damage but I don't think anyone realistically expects NI to end up in the CU?

Leroy42

Nody, are you saying that there really is no other option but a hard border, save from the UK staying in the CU/SM which it is not going to do?

That is my reading of your post. (which btw was very informative)

BloodBath

I'm still convinced Brexit will not happen. The whole thing is a farcical disaster that will do nothing but hurt the UK.

Nody

kowtow wrote: »

If you are all correct in your assumptions, then there is only one way for this to go which is a hard Brexit and a hard border on the Irish side at least - probably the UK side as well, with Irish / UK relations damaged badly on top of the worst case scenario for trade between the two countries.

This is exactly why we're stating UK's promise to have an open border never worked with their read lines; one or the other have to give.

I hope for everybody's sake that this does not turn out to be the case, being able to blame one side or another doesn't seem like much compensation for the long term damage but I don't think anyone realistically expects NI to end up in the CU?

Personally I think NI will end up outside the CU at a start due to DUP and May's incompetence; a year or two down the line when the pain in NI has been around I think Labour will allow them a vote on subject and they will look to rejoin the CU as a special region of UK accordingly (a majority already voted to remain in the first place and after a a significant hit to their wallets they will want the good old times back). That will also help UK because the smuggling is easier checked at the ports anyway compared the Irish land roads so a win win for UK. Now Gibraltar would love that option as well but honestly by they they will be so seriously gutted it will not matter and Spain would veto that anyway. If you think NI will be hit bad by Brexit Gibraltar will take it a heck of a lot worse by comparison.

PeadarCo

kowtow wrote:

I hope for everybody's sake that this does not turn out to be the case, being able to blame one side or another doesn't seem like much compensation for the long term damage but I don't think anyone realistically expects NI to end up in the CU?

It all depends on what happens as Brexit begins to bite. Some elements of Brexit have begun to hit loss of European capital of culture, weaker sterling and lower economic forecasts. However judging from the posts here it will only be in the later half of next year when Brexit really begins to bite. What happens then will determine the nature of Brexit in my view. How will the UK public react and what impact will it have on politicians. Its perfectly possible that the UK could back track. Its the big unknown as far as I am concerned.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

Nody, are you saying that there really is no other option but a hard border, save from the UK staying in the CU/SM which it is not going to do?

That is my reading of your post. (which btw was very informative)

There are two other options; first one is to declare NI as a special customs region which would be 100% compliant with EU regulation and in essence leave NI in EU while the rest of UK leaves putting the controls at the sea. This however would mean NI imports from UK would need to comply with EU requirements & standards. This is the EU line and Irish line which has been doing rounds in the last few weeks.

Second option is Ireland drops out of the EU CU and single market by leaving as well and then strike a new deal with UK on 100% FTA between the two countries (but that obviously add barriers to EU like UK will have now).

Beyond that yes; there will be a hard border in Ireland to be compliant with both EU and WTO regulation as far as I can see from my work with import/export declarations etc. Could be a third magical bullet somehow but no clue how that would be done if so.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

What will the EU do if the UK refuses to control exports from NI to Ireland? Would it be likely that Calais might become a little more difficult for them?

it isn't up to the UK to control exports from NI in Ireland, it is up to Ireland to control imports, is it not?

flaneur

wes wrote: »

The UK would be sued via the WTO, not sure how that work exactly, but what there doing would violate WTO rules, and my understanding is that it would leave them open to law suits not just from the EU, but other WTO members.

They pretty much have to enforce the border.

What there doing is a blaming exercise and nothing more imo. There decision will result in a hard border, as per WTO rules.

Only way to avoid that is cancel Brexit, stay in the single market, stay in the customs union, the North stays in the customs union. The UK has ruled all those out, so there will be a hard border.

Knowing that Brexiteers, if that happens, they'll probably just demand to leave the WTO and trade exclusively with themselves....

Water John

ROI has no interest in having bilateral talks on a hard border with the UK. Doubt if it would be legal for them to engage anyway. Such talks are the responsibility of the EU, on our behalf.

Technically, Turkey are not members of the CU. Both the EU and Turkey both have CUs that mirror one another.

Samaris

Exactly why do we need to know how trade works to know where the border is and how it is enforced? It is impossible to know how to conduct trade until all parties know where the UK's regulatory authority begins and ends. Regulation-wise, we'd like to know exactly where your country ends, please. Like every other modern country knows before deciding how to trade with each other. And that's before we get to the social and economic impacts which almost completely hit this island. This is not an unreasonable demand.

The argument of trade is a red herring. It is patently false to state that the border is predicated on trade. Trade is predicated on the border.

On top of that, the British government agreed to this. Are they this blatantly breaking the first thing they agreed on? And as many others have said, how can Ireland trust a totally non-binding promise (more a definite aspiration than a promise so far) made on something this vital to our country in the face of that? There's people will be on Britain's side, fair enough, but don't tell us that we shouldn't be objecting to such a patently bad idea for our interests. That the British government are getting away with such a lousy argument to break their word is amazing. And the one that gives the lie to the famous "take back control of the borders" line. The British government have acted in poor faith throughout, feeding a narrative of self-aggrievement beaten only by Trump's.

The Irish government must veto the talks moving on if Britain don't come to the table on this. The plan doesn't have to be perfect, but some evidence of thinking it through - there is to be a border because that is how Britain leaving an alliance goes, so where is it? If we all agree that the border isn't to be on the island, where is it to go?

Infini

BloodBath wrote: »

I'm still convinced Brexit will not happen. The whole thing is a farcical disaster that will do nothing but hurt the UK.

My honest opinion is that once it becomes clear HOW much of a feck up this whole fiasco is gonna ruin Britain someone will basically say STOP to all of it. The biggest irritants are IMO the bile coming out of the Daily Fail and Bull**** Express. Throw the sun and some of the others in and they're the driving force behind it blaming EU for BRITAINS INCOMPETENCIES.

The DUP is also a joke expecially Arlene talking as though they're in a completely different reality from the rest of the world. They basically are putting their political beliefs before the hard economic fact's and its gonna burn them eventually. They seem to forget that the majority of NI voted to REMAIN not leave not least because of economic considerations. A sea border and retaining the single market would probably be far less harmful for them but you have them wanting to take NI out of the EU against the wishes of many people there.

Basically once how big a feckup this will inevitably become becomes clear (they have no plan and no clear strategy for this) and precise on how damaging it will be and buisnesses start triggering their exit plans to get out the conservatives are gonnna come under INTENSE pressure from all sides to abort this. The DUP will try continue being delusional but they'll eventually not only be facing pressure from the nationalists but from the more moderate unionists as well (the ones who were happy with the previous status quo not just because of politics but economics as well) who ARENT raving idiots and who are the ones who are gonna get hit hard from this.

I'm actually hoping that a no-deal crashout becomes a serious threat NOT because I want to see the Brits crash and burn but because that threat might be the ONLY thing that might create enough pressure not only to force an abortion of this farce (or at least a 2nd referendum) but to give both the reasonable people a fighting chance to end this and to slap down the nationalistic bile spouting idiots for wasting all this time and energy on a failed exercise in economic hari-kari.

Brexit is essentially trading a superior arrangement for an inferior one. Not only that but if they feel that the current EU is in a sense broken it's because it NEEDS reform anyways to both reconnect with its people and to make sure the event's of the last decade dont fall on those who had no control in the first place ever again.

Professor Moriarty

Samaris wrote: »

Exactly why do we need to know how trade works to know where the border is and how it is enforced? It is impossible to know how to conduct trade until all parties know where the UK's regulatory authority begins and ends. Regulation-wise, we'd like to know exactly where your country ends, please. Like every other modern country knows before deciding how to trade with each other. And that's before we get to the social and economic impacts which almost completely hit this island. This is not an unreasonable demand.

The argument of trade is a red herring. It is patently false to state that the border is predicated on trade. Trade is predicated on the border.

On top of that, the British government agreed to this. Are they this blatantly breaking the first thing they agreed on? And as many others have said, how can Ireland trust a totally non-binding promise (more a definite aspiration than a promise so far) made on something this vital to our country in the face of that? There's people will be on Britain's side, fair enough, but don't tell us that we shouldn't be objecting to such a patently bad idea for our interests. That the British government are getting away with such a lousy argument to break their word is amazing. And the one that gives the lie to the famous "take back control of the borders" line. The British government have acted in poor faith throughout, feeding a narrative of self-aggrievement beaten only by Trump's.

The Irish government must veto the talks moving on if Britain don't come to the table on this.

Coveney was given assurances last Friday by Barnier, Tusk and Juncker that Ireland won't have to use its veto. Which should take the Murdoch searchlight of blame off Ireland for a while. The EU will block progress if there isn't a credible solution to the border question.

As an aside, it's very sad that people are having to talk about 'the border' again after 20 years of irrelevance.

Samaris

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Coveney was given assurances last Friday by Barnier, Tusk and Juncker that Ireland won't have to use its veto. Which should take the Murdoch searchlight of blame off Ireland for a while. The EU will block progress if there isn't a credible solution to the border question.

As an aside, it's very sad that people are having to talk about 'the border' again after 20 years of irrelevance.

It really is.

Regarding Barnier though, we were fortunate he got the prominent role. He's actually dealt with Northern Ireland before as regional commissioner for the peace process somewhere around 2000 and understands the situation better than most.

Jaggo

Leroy42 wrote: »

Nody, are you saying that there really is no other option but a hard border, save from the UK staying in the CU/SM which it is not going to do?

That is my reading of your post. (which btw was very informative)

By the way, I think this is the way the EU and Ireland read it too (and from reading the Revenue document Ireland were way ahead of the UK on the implications of the border).

If you remember the EU (barnier) was constantly commenting on how the regulatory framework of the Single Market had to stay unified etc.. Also it was mentioned that the EU could add a special border agreement that would allow the EU meet its WTO obligations on border control while allowing an open border in NI.

The UK had to take the hint. Pass the deal off as Northern Ireland only maintaining the existing regulatory framework etc. and things might have gone through ok.
But the UK was either too ignorant or stupid to see the implications, or maybe realized they had a bargaining chip in the North and ignored the potential solutions.
Ireland did the running on bringing sea border into focus once again (the EU couldn't because that would be them interfering in the UKs sovereignty).
The UK offered fantasy plans for the border, accepted by no country on earth all the time parroting their rubbish about not wanting a border.

PS. This is an excellent blog written by a guy (a brexiteer) who really knows his stuff. http://eureferendum.com/
In todays piece (maybe yesterdays, he goes thorough reasons why the Irish solution to the border is correct)

Infini

Nody wrote: »

Could be a third magical bullet somehow but no clue how that would be done if so.

Probably a border poll would be the third option and having the North reunite with the south. The diehard unionists will be pissed of course BUT if Brexit becomes the colossal economic disaster alot of reasonable thinking people suspect it will then it will create the possibility of it. The reasonable thinking unionist's are the ones to watch on this. No point in watching idiots like paisley and foster they represent only their narrow self interests, its when a majority of unionist's find themselves much worse off because of London's stupidity that they'll start considering reunification as the better option (and the small irony that if they did reunite with the south they would have a much better representation in the dail too).

Professor Moriarty

Samaris wrote: »

It really is.

Regarding Barnier though, we were fortunate he got the prominent role. He's actually dealt with Northern Ireland before as regional commissioner for the peace process somewhere around 2000 and understands the situation better than most.

That's good to hear. Plus the Tories and their jingoistic press have squandered most of Britain's goodwill whereas Ireland has always been a good EU child.

One small concern that I have is that we wield very little power once we lose the veto (we have no veto once the deal is done and is being voted on). When push comes to shove, I hope the EU doesn't throw the border issue under the bus in order to gain advantage in other areas. This is especially pertinent while the Commons arithmetic remains as it is and the DUP has inordinate power.

There's an Article 50 for leaving the EU. There's no Article 50 for leaving the Good Friday Agreement. It's just such a basic logical conclusion that it has be to sorted first.

My home is 10 minutes from the border. I grew up going through the cursed thing every weekend. It simply makes no sense to me that it could be a part of trade negotiations with the EU. "We might follow it if it's to our benefit". And then the hardliners accuse the Irish of not playing nice.

I brought this up with some English friends before the vote even happened and was called selfish. They were all about sticking it to the EU overlords, but it was me thinking about Monaghan, surrounded by border, who was the selfish one.

Inquitus

This FT Article does a good job of explaining why the UK has a huge burden of responsibility for a border.

https://www.ft.com/content/1ce27838-d370-11e7-8c9a-d9c0a5c8d5c9

Please use the sharing tools found via the email icon at the top of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/1ce27838-d370-11e7-8c9a-d9c0a5c8d5c9

As the weeks pass, so the ideas get sillier. One circulating among certain Brexiters at the moment is that the UK could gain the upper hand over the Ireland issue by simply leaving the Irish border open after Brexit, charging no tariffs and making no inspections, and dare the EU to be the first to put up customs posts.

Would this actually work in the real world? No, for many reasons. At the most it is likely to be a crude blame-shifting exercise aimed at getting the British public to point the finger at the Irish when the border inevitably goes up.

For a post-Brexit UK to charge no tariffs on imports from the EU would be a massive breach of the rules of the World Trade Organization, which operates on a “most-favoured nation” (MFN) principle of equal treatment. This can be overridden if two or more members sign a formal bilateral or regional trade agreement among themselves. But it will take years for the UK to agree a trade deal with the EU: Britain cannot simply pre-empt it by holding tariffs at zero from the off.

If the UK discriminates in this way, it will be vulnerable to widespread litigation in the WTO. This will come at a time when the UK is attempting to regularise its position in the organisation, in which it has hitherto been represented by the EU. The UK is dependent on the goodwill of other WTO members in the tricky question of splitting the EU’s existing commitments on food import quotas. It must also establish its position in the WTO’s government procurement agreement which gives its companies the right to bid for public tenders abroad. Arriving on the scene while creating one of the biggest breaches of WTO law in the organisation’s existence probably isn’t the way to get other countries on side.

Of course, the UK could fulfil the MFN principle by immediately offering zero tariffs to every WTO member. Domestically, that would be politically disastrous. British farmers shelter behind EU tariffs that can rise to more than 50 per cent for beef and lamb. Sweeping them away would lead to mass bankruptcies as cheaper Brazilian and Australian produce flooded in. Even in manufacturing, where tariffs are lower, accepting, say, cars at a zero rather than the current 10 per cent duty would have some serious repercussions.

Moreover, offering zero tariffs all round would risk Northern Ireland being turned into a backdoor export platform to the EU. Chinese exporters, for example, would land goods in Belfast at nil tariff and drive them across the border. In principle, this would be controlled by “rules of origin” checks to assess where the goods came from, which can be administered electronically. In practice, Ireland and the EU are taking a huge risk if they leave a completely absent physical border with such huge opportunities for mislabelling and smuggling.

Even if they can work out the tariffs, other questions remain. Border controls are not simply a question of duties. They also function as inspection posts for product safety and food hygiene. So if the UK diverged from EU food and product quality regulations, Ireland would be forced to put in inspection posts to prevent substandard goods circulating in the UK economy leaking into the EU.

Brexiters can argue that considerations about enforcing rules of origin and product regulations are still a matter of choice. In reality, though, they are not. They are legal obligations. If Ireland breaches the integrity of the single market by failing to control its border, it will be liable at the European Court of Justice. The decision to put up a border will in effect not be one taken unilaterally by Dublin. If the UK is hoping to use this issue to drive a wedge between Ireland and the rest of the EU rather than simply to grandstand to a domestic British audience, it will very likely fail.

And the UK has its own obligations to think about. Even if the UK promised to comply with EU product and hygiene regulations in perpetuity, border controls also function as an enforcement agency for a wide variety of laws including restricting counterfeits, ensuring environmental safety, deterring human smuggling, protecting industrial and commercial property and safeguarding national treasures. Some of these are obligations directly on the UK as a signatory to United Nations charters. Leaving the border open would thus expose the UK as an eccentric, irresponsible global citizen, not a terrific way to launch boldly into the world as an independent trading nation.

I have run the idea of a one-way UK-Ireland open frontier past some border and tax experts in Brussels. The answer was a resounding thumbs-down, for the reasons stated above.

If would be extraordinary if even this beleaguered government genuinely tried the crude and ignorant bluff of threatening to leave the border open. To the extent that anyone should take it seriously, it is as an exercise in pre-emptive blame-shifting with regard to British public opinion rather than a coherent plan.

listermint

Spoiler's are not fun. Don't do that

Anthracite

I'm just asking generally as Solo has shut up shop for the day: can anyone explain to me why he thinks the Irish position on the border is 'stupid' other than that it contradicts the arbitrary policy decided by the Brexiteers?

I'm wondering if I missed something because I sure as hell can't see any other argument.

Sam Russell

Inquitus wrote: »

This FT Article does a good job of explaining why the UK has a huge burden of responsibility for a border.

https://www.ft.com/content/1ce27838-d370-11e7-8c9a-d9c0a5c8d5c9



As the weeks pass, so the ideas get sillier. One circulating among certain Brexiters at the moment is that the UK could gain the upper hand over the Ireland issue by simply leaving the Irish border open after Brexit, charging no tariffs and making no inspections, and dare the EU to be the first to put up customs posts.

Would this actually work in the real world? No, for many reasons. At the most it is likely to be a crude blame-shifting exercise aimed at getting the British public to point the finger at the Irish when the border inevitably goes up.

For a post-Brexit UK to charge no tariffs on imports from the EU would be a massive breach of the rules of the World Trade Organization, which operates on a “most-favoured nation” (MFN) principle of equal treatment. This can be overridden if two or more members sign a formal bilateral or regional trade agreement among themselves. But it will take years for the UK to agree a trade deal with the EU: Britain cannot simply pre-empt it by holding tariffs at zero from the off.

If the UK discriminates in this way, it will be vulnerable to widespread litigation in the WTO. This will come at a time when the UK is attempting to regularise its position in the organisation, in which it has hitherto been represented by the EU. The UK is dependent on the goodwill of other WTO members in the tricky question of splitting the EU’s existing commitments on food import quotas. It must also establish its position in the WTO’s government procurement agreement which gives its companies the right to bid for public tenders abroad. Arriving on the scene while creating one of the biggest breaches of WTO law in the organisation’s existence probably isn’t the way to get other countries on side.

Of course, the UK could fulfil the MFN principle by immediately offering zero tariffs to every WTO member. Domestically, that would be politically disastrous. British farmers shelter behind EU tariffs that can rise to more than 50 per cent for beef and lamb. Sweeping them away would lead to mass bankruptcies as cheaper Brazilian and Australian produce flooded in. Even in manufacturing, where tariffs are lower, accepting, say, cars at a zero rather than the current 10 per cent duty would have some serious repercussions.

Moreover, offering zero tariffs all round would risk Northern Ireland being turned into a backdoor export platform to the EU. Chinese exporters, for example, would land goods in Belfast at nil tariff and drive them across the border. In principle, this would be controlled by “rules of origin” checks to assess where the goods came from, which can be administered electronically. In practice, Ireland and the EU are taking a huge risk if they leave a completely absent physical border with such huge opportunities for mislabelling and smuggling.

Even if they can work out the tariffs, other questions remain. Border controls are not simply a question of duties. They also function as inspection posts for product safety and food hygiene. So if the UK diverged from EU food and product quality regulations, Ireland would be forced to put in inspection posts to prevent substandard goods circulating in the UK economy leaking into the EU.

Brexiters can argue that considerations about enforcing rules of origin and product regulations are still a matter of choice. In reality, though, they are not. They are legal obligations. If Ireland breaches the integrity of the single market by failing to control its border, it will be liable at the European Court of Justice. The decision to put up a border will in effect not be one taken unilaterally by Dublin. If the UK is hoping to use this issue to drive a wedge between Ireland and the rest of the EU rather than simply to grandstand to a domestic British audience, it will very likely fail.

And the UK has its own obligations to think about. Even if the UK promised to comply with EU product and hygiene regulations in perpetuity, border controls also function as an enforcement agency for a wide variety of laws including restricting counterfeits, ensuring environmental safety, deterring human smuggling, protecting industrial and commercial property and safeguarding national treasures. Some of these are obligations directly on the UK as a signatory to United Nations charters. Leaving the border open would thus expose the UK as an eccentric, irresponsible global citizen, not a terrific way to launch boldly into the world as an independent trading nation.

I have run the idea of a one-way UK-Ireland open frontier past some border and tax experts in Brussels. The answer was a resounding thumbs-down, for the reasons stated above.

If would be extraordinary if even this beleaguered government genuinely tried the crude and ignorant bluff of threatening to leave the border open. To the extent that anyone should take it seriously, it is as an exercise in pre-emptive blame-shifting with regard to British public opinion rather than a coherent plan.

Would the EU simply close Calais and other ports to UK traffic as a reprisal?

Capt'n Midnight

kowtow wrote: »

Do you not think that policing it electronically, with additional physical checks at the ports (and presumably ad-hoc checks behind the border) would be sufficient for WTO purposes? I would have thought it was a matter of practical application rather than a political one.

Back in the day the British Army would blow up bridges on unapproved crossings. And the locals would fill them in again with a JCB and carry on.
Remind me again how you police that stuff electronically ?

Some suggest the Norway-Sweden model. I don't remember a couple of thousand people being murdered up there do you ?

You can't hand wave political issues in Northern Ireland.
EVERYTHING up north can be a political issue. If it isn't yet it will be.

How large a volume of goods of non-Irish origin would really leak across a border like that in practice?

Does this answer your question ?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/08/uk-faces-2bn-fine-over-chinese-imports-scam-say-eu-anti-fraud-investigators

The British government faces a €2bn (£1.7bn) fine for negligence that allowed criminal gangs to flood European black markets with illegal Chinese goods, EU anti-fraud investigators have said.

Also factor in the hundreds of millions lost to customs and excise through different historical rates on either side of the border. At present the carbon tax means a truck load of coal is €2,000 cheaper up north. In the past gross fuel imports to the north fell by a fifth due to the volume smuggled across.

Capt'n Midnight

BloodBath wrote: »

I'm still convinced Brexit will not happen. The whole thing is a farcical disaster that will do nothing but hurt the UK.

I'm waiting for the announcement on 1/4/18

Sam Russell

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Back in the day the British Army would blow up bridges on unapproved crossings. And the locals would fill them in again with a JCB and carry on.
Remind me again how you police that stuff electronically ?

Some suggest the Norway-Sweden model. I don't remember a couple of thousand people being murdered up there do you ?

You can't hand wave political issues in Northern Ireland.
EVERYTHING up north can be a political issue. If it isn't yet it will be.

Try this and see if you can remember Anders Behring Breikvik

Schorpio

Anthracite wrote: »

I'm just asking generally as Solo has shut up shop for the day: can anyone explain to me why he thinks the Irish position on the border is 'stupid' other than that it contradicts the arbitrary policy decided by the Brexiteers?

I'm wondering if I missed something because I sure as hell can't see any other argument.

I think it centers around the notion that they say that the Irish gov aren't actually asking for the UK gov not to put up a border - what Ireland is essentially asking for is a written guarantee that the UK won't put itself in a position whereby we / the EU has to put up the border.

Essentially, the UK would then be bound to keep things as they are, and would prevent them from fully leaving the EU, and such an agreement could even prevent the UK from just getting fed up and 'walking away' from the discussions, as so many Daily Mail commentators want them to do.

Solo and others (I believe) are making the case that the UK can't and won't agree to this because the UK needs to evaluate the trade options on offer from the EU before making any decision, or being bound to the EU in this way. However, they insist that the UK can come up with a solution and have outlined this in position papers (which they haven't, and even if they had, they couldn't be held to account for a position paper).

In reality, we all know that UK won't sign an agreement and be bound by those terms because they have no solution within the confines of their 'red lines', and they want to negotiate trade - at which time they can get some sort of deal (better than no deal), but also conclude that NI can't be borderless despite their best intentions.

Nody

Funnily enough Turkey's minister has just shared their problem with Turkish trucks with the Independent and Turkey has a better deal than UK will have at a hard crash out as a reminder.

Turkish lorry drivers have protested at queues of anything between 4 km and 17 km (10.5 miles) at Bulgarian checkpoints, forcing them to wait up to 30 hours to get through.

Each driver requires an export declaration, invoices for the products they are carrying, insurance certificates and a transport permit for each EU nation they will drive through.

The bureaucracy is the result of the EU, so far, only granting the right of lorries to move freely if there is also an agreement on the free movement of people.

embraer170

As I said earlier in this topic, there are often massive queues of lorries at checkpoints between Germany and Switzerland.

This is something that was quoted as a "model" a few times here.

Enzokk

Anthracite wrote: »

I'm just asking generally as Solo has shut up shop for the day: can anyone explain to me why he thinks the Irish position on the border is 'stupid' other than that it contradicts the arbitrary policy decided by the Brexiteers?

I'm wondering if I missed something because I sure as hell can't see any other argument.

Schorpio wrote: »

I think it centers around the notion that they say that the Irish gov aren't actually asking for the UK gov not to put up a border - what Ireland is essentially asking for is a written guarantee that the UK won't put itself in a position whereby we / the EU has to put up the border.

Essentially, the UK would then be bound to keep things as they are, and would prevent them from fully leaving the EU, and such an agreement could even prevent the UK from just getting fed up and 'walking away' from the discussions, as so many Daily Mail commentators want them to do.

Solo and others (I believe) are making the case that the UK can't and won't agree to this because the UK needs to evaluate the trade options on offer from the EU before making any decision, or being bound to the EU in this way. However, they insist that the UK can come up with a solution and have outlined this in position papers (which they haven't, and even if they had, they couldn't be held to account for a position paper).

In reality, we all know that UK won't sign an agreement and be bound by those terms because they have no solution within the confines of their 'red lines', and they want to negotiate trade - at which time they can get some sort of deal (better than no deal), but also conclude that NI can't be borderless despite their best intentions.

I think the reply has it covered. I would think it is to do with the fact that it would seem that the EU is trying to force the UK to stay in the CU and SM by asking them to guarantee that there will be no borders between Northern Ireland and Ireland. The only way this can happen is if NI at least is part of the customs union and in the single market. They see this as a way the EU is trying to force the UK to stay in those mechanisms via a back door.

But the contradiction I see and what needs to be cleared up by the UK (not the EU as the UK is leaving the EU and needs to clarify the relationship it wants) is how can the UK aim for a open border when it is not part of the customs union. Also, how can the UK commit to not having a physical border, as outlined in their white paper and what solo keeps referring to, without knowing the trade agreement with the EU?

Now it seems that this supports his view that the border cannot be sorted out without talking about trade. But this is not necessarily true because if the UK commits to their white paper then they will stay in the customs union. Seeing as they have drawn their red lines of leaving everything EU this is a contradiction that has not been cleared up by the UK yet. The blaming of the EU and the Irish on the border is just trying to shift the blame and it is working on some as you can see on this thread.

So we are back at the start with the UK not being clear on the position it wants to take.

steddyeddy

embraer170 wrote: »

As I said earlier in this topic, there are often massive queues of lorries at checkpoints between Germany and Switzerland.

This is something that was quoted as a "model" a few times here.

The fact that the UK is an island doesn't help either.

Sand

Anthracite wrote: »

I'm just asking generally as Solo has shut up shop for the day: can anyone explain to me why he thinks the Irish position on the border is 'stupid' other than that it contradicts the arbitrary policy decided by the Brexiteers?

I'm wondering if I missed something because I sure as hell can't see any other argument.

I wouldn't wonder about it. Solo has admitted already that under absolutely no circumstances would he reconsider support for Brexit. So there is no genuine thought process going on there that is evidence or argument based.

But I think the response would be much the same as the response to any query about Brexit. Something along the lines of:

1) I've given all the reasons before.
2) Everyone should want a good deal for the UK.
3) The British have made it clear they want an open border.
4) The British say we need to talk about trade first, so that's what we need to do.
5) British red lines are sacred, EU and Irish red lines are unreasonable and malicious.

Stick a Good Morning at the top and a Much Thanks at the bottom and we're done.

A Dub in Glasgo

This is the Associate Editor of the Daily Telegraph - clucking bell!

https://twitter.com/JeremyWarnerUK/status/935185322010402821

steddyeddy

A n EU/UK study suggests 142 cross border activities on the island of Ireland could be affected by a hard Brexit. A sea border seems the way forward IMHO.

steddyeddy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

This is the Associate Editor of the Daily Telegraph - clucking bell!

https://twitter.com/JeremyWarnerUK/status/935185322010402821

I can feel anti-Irish sentiment seep through the British media again.

As for the Telegraph, I've said previously it's a rag that middle class people buy to convince themselves they're better than Sun readers. They're not.

Anthracite

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

This is the Associate Editor of the Daily Telegraph - clucking bell!

https://twitter.com/JeremyWarnerUK/status/935185322010402821

It was indeed how we poisoned their politics by being exploited, misgoverned and stripped of resources and people for centuries.

Is there anything we can do to make amends?

Once again, a demonstration that bizarre Jingoistic and pig-ignorant attitudes prevail at all levels amongst some of our UK friends and peers.

An Claidheamh

steddyeddy wrote: »

I can feel anti-Irish sentiment seep through the British media again.

As for the Telegraph, I've said previously it's a rag that middle class people buy to convince themselves they're better than Sun readers. They're not.

But but but ....Britain are our friends......

Terry Wogan got paid by the bbc ..... We're practically a family ...... Graham Norton....

....Yeah they've always been bigots.


It's the Irish government and media who have been covering it up since the 70s, easier than growing a backbone.


I seriously think Varadkar and Coveney need to actually veto them.

They just won't understand anything else.

sink

Another non answer by a Tory brexiter.

Ireland is miscalculating by asking the impossible of Britain. But there is a way out of this Brexit impasse - William Hague

He starts off by stating that Ireland is asking the impossible of Britain (nevermind that Britain is asking the impossible of Ireland) and then proposes issuing a written guarantee that the border remain open (what the Irish government has been asking for), without any suggestion as to how that can actually be achieved. Only that 'working together in a spirit of friendship, we can find solutions'. Well that's kind of what the Irish government and the EU are asking you for, but so far you've proposed nothing but fleeting thoughts on non existent technology and shot down any suggestion from the other side as politically unacceptable. It seems the brexiters envisioned they were the only ones with political red lines, well it's time to wake up. So please Mr Hague tell us how do you cut this Gordian Knot?

Blowfish

An interesting study, if a bit predictable in its results, shows that xenophobia is a strong predictor for voting for Brexit.

https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/xenophobia-found-to-be-strong-predictor-for-brexit-vote-regardless-of-age-gender-or-education

blanch152

steddyeddy wrote: »

The fact that the UK is an island doesn't help either.

The UK isn't an island. It has a land border.

flaneur

Oh poor diddums has to deal with political reality and a world where not everyone gives you exactly what you want.

The tantrums will stop eventually. Don’t reward that kind of behavior wirh attention!

Water John

The Uk has no land border. The United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland has.

flaneur

Water John wrote: »

The Uk has no land border. The United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland has.

They’re the same thing. Britain has no land border but the UK has.

They often seem to forget they have NI.

J Mysterio

Concerned that an election might be called.

Slightly Ironic that both sides said they don't want an election... and it looks like there could be an election.

Junkyard Tom

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The UK said they have a solution that doesn't require a hard border and one would assume doesn't require NI to be in the CU . So what is it?

It's bullshit. They want to push the border issue down the line and talk about friction-less trade and if the EU say 'that's not possible when you're out of the CU' they'll say 'well you'll be forcing a hard border in Ireland if you don't give us a special no-consequences deal'.

Ireland will be used as a hostage by the British in the negotiations.

wes

Blowfish wrote: »

An interesting study, if a bit predictable in its results, shows that xenophobia is a strong predictor for voting for Brexit.

https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/xenophobia-found-to-be-strong-predictor-for-brexit-vote-regardless-of-age-gender-or-education

We see it with the hatred we are now on the receiving end of. Will get worse before it gets better.

flaneur

wes wrote: »

We see it with the hatred we are now on the receiving end of. Will get worse before it gets better.

It is going to get them horrific PR. I feel sorry for the other half of the UK having this representation around the world.