Brexit discussion thread III

trellheim

Without a transition , and with no deal, i.e. a hard brexit.

Basic stuff that affects us :

1) Aer Lingus and Ryanair can't fly to the UK ( Uk wont be an EASA member )

2) Ulster bank have to shut up shop ( part of RBS )

M&S, Tesco have to close ( have to create their own supply chains from scratch )

real beans and shotguns stuff

jobbridge4life

J Mysterio wrote: »

Andrew Marr Theresa May interview

An utterly useless 'interview'. A perfect exemplar of the failures of the media in the UK to deal substantively with Brexit. Listening to that, plenty of the mildly informed electorate could come away thinking T-May has it all under control, that she has put forward detailed solutions to the problems posed by Brexit. The reality is that it was nothing more than more of the same from the British, jingoistic ambitions.

J Mysterio

This is pretty old at this stage, though the conversation hasnt advanced much (no surprise).

clicky.

It's just notable about for the first half of the clip, the interview with Hillary Benn.

Benn and the select committee on NI did a good job and were very thorough. Their final recommendations would seem to tally with that of the EU and Ireland. Their report should have (had) influence.

Also, this is the same man who questioned Davis over his sector his sector analysis.

Nody

1) They can fly in and fly out but UK owned planes can not fly as there is no authorised recognised agency to confirm their maintenance.

2) This happens no matter what since they will not get access to direct Finance which May confirmed; hence I I'd expect RBS already have a plan for this in play to set it up as Irish bank owned by RBS.

3) Tesco has already European supply network and can redirect with European goods instead from their warehouses. They will not be able to replace everything but far from needing to shut up shop.

Not mentioned but expect:
4) Queues at the ferry stops of UK trucks (I expect UK will let trucks with in 24h simply because they will give up realizing they can't manage without the food etc. and implements a temporary month+ duration of allowing all EU trucks in)

5) Queue of trucks trying to leave the UK with goods (this only represents about 40% of all trucks entering UK). I expect quite a few will simply decide go back empty instead by dumping it and/or returning to a warehouse and leaving it where they picked it up (warehouse space for temporary rent will become very rare and expensive).

6) Multiple crimes / terrorist attack will happen and the police/Scotland yard will claim the lack of access to Europol as the reason they could not stop it.

7) Car companies will be temporary shutting down / reducing the number of shifts at the car plants which will at least a few months and some will never open again / open all lines again

trellheim

How on earth will that volume of goods get here ( without the silly answers of "more ships" ) ... to keep the same kind of just in time deliveries coming direct from France and Spain

Call me Al

Nody wrote: »

The Swiss don't have a female PM to slam her handbag in the table to get them what they want.

There was also an interview on BBC how she explains what she asked for is doable it only required EU to do a long list of things they have not done with any other country in a deal (and she's the one outlining the list!) but that's fully reasonable to May that UK would get that done in 6 months and sign such a deal with EU.

Well it's obvious according to Lord Howard on the Andrew Marr Show today.. grinning like a demented man, he repeatedly said that of course EU will give the UK this bespoke deal, frictionless border whilst completely out of CU and SM. Because the EU need access to the UK market. The "we need them and they need us" approach. And sure all these things both sides are saying are all just negotiations. We know what we are doing. It will be great. We still have lines, they're just more pink than red.


These UK negotiators are not that stupid, well most of them aren't. They must appreciate that the UK can't be better off. It will spell the end of the whole Eu project if they have a better deal out than in. By the very nature of the EU project they can't be allowed cherry pick.

Skedaddle

Sam Russell wrote: »

My understanding, for what it is worth, is that, should NI vote for a UI, (and Ireland does), that NI would simply cede to Ireland, with no baggage like a share of the huge National Debt. The annual subvention from the UK Gov could well be continued on a tapered basis with perhaps the EU assisting.

Scotland, on the other hand, would be required to take a share of National Debt as part of a 'Divorce Settlement', should they vote for independence. They could of course shout that the English Gov could go whistle for it.

Oh, the irony.

I don't think the T&Cs of that have ever really been hammered out in either case. If there were a particularly aggressive anti-NI campaign in the UK, it could well be handed a proportional share of the national debt.

However, I think the UK would be delighted to get rid of NI. There's no particular panic to keep it.

2.7% of the UK population is made up of Northern Ireland.
UK national debt is about to hit £2 trillion.

So, about £54 billion.
Their GDP is £38.8 billion roughly

So they'd be kicking off with a 139% debt to GDP ratio...

Sam Russell

Skedaddle wrote: »

I don't think the T&Cs of that have ever really been hammered out in either case. If there were a particularly aggressive anti-NI campaign in the UK, it could well be handed a proportional share of the national debt.

The GFA makes no reference to T&C, solely that a simple majority votes for it. It also requires that a simple majority of the Irish electorate votes for it as well, but I think that is a given.

However, I think the UK would be delighted to get rid of NI. There's no particular panic to keep it.

If only to rid themselves of the DUP.

2.7% of the UK population is made up of Northern Ireland.
UK national debt is about to hit £2 trillion.

So, about £54 billion.
Their GDP is £38.8 billion roughly

So they'd be kicking off with a 139% debt to GDP ratio...

I doubt that the National Debt idea would fly in any circumstances. Who would pay - the people of NI?

They were not responsible for it - Oh, wait ..... @ £10 billion a year - that is less than 4 years subvention - but nah - that was a UK Gov decision. They can whistle.

Havockk

J Mysterio wrote: »

Andrew Marr Theresa May interview

Complete kid Gloves from Marr, I've always admired the BBC but the change in their coverage this past year or so has been jarring, very poor.

murphaph

trellheim wrote: »

How on earth will that volume of goods get here ( without the silly answers of "more ships" ) ... to keep the same kind of just in time deliveries coming direct from France and Spain

I think the EU will have to step in and charter vessels to provide a sea bridge to/from Ireland. The good thing is that they have the whole world to scour for any such vessels/crews and they will offer good money IMO. Ireland will not be allowed to unduly suffer in this regard. It will Bea bit of a talisman for the EU.

Nody

murphaph wrote: »

I think the EU will have to step in and charter vessels to provide a sea bridge to/from Ireland. The good thing is that they have the whole world to scour for any such vessels/crews and they will offer good money IMO. Ireland will not be allowed to unduly suffer in this regard. It will Bea bit of a talisman for the EU.

Sorry but this is approaching May's Brexit plan of silliness. EU will not fund nor pay for such a vessel nor will the "scour the world" for one. All that will happen is that the JIT flows will adjust to slightly longer transit times and hence have more volume in transit at any given point of time with the new ferry schedules that are already being brought in (and any supply manager worth his salt would have extra stock on hand at least a week before Brexit happens as a precaution). Ireland is not Berlin surrounded by hostile territory and being starved and if there's enough need for a faster ferry then one of the ferry companies will step in to provide such a service accordingly. Unlike UK Ireland will not have a new set of customs controls to go through and do which will cause delays in days; all Ireland has is a slightly different routing of inbound trade volumes coming in through a few new European ports instead.

trellheim

Good EU side tweet set from JC Piris https://twitter.com/piris_jc/status/970338595482595328

murphaph

Nody wrote: »

Sorry but this is approaching May's Brexit plan of silliness. EU will not fund nor pay for such a vessel nor will the "scour the world" for one. All that will happen is that the JIT flows will adjust to slightly longer transit times and hence have more volume in transit at any given point of time with the new ferry schedules that are already being brought in (and any supply manager worth his salt would have extra stock on hand at least a week before Brexit happens as a precaution). Ireland is not Berlin surrounded by hostile territory and being starved and if there's enough need for a faster ferry then one of the ferry companies will step in to provide such a service accordingly. Unlike UK Ireland will not have a new set of customs controls to go through and do which will cause delays in days; all Ireland has is a slightly different routing of inbound trade volumes coming in through a few new European ports instead.

I don't see the ferry companies being able to react quickly enough to handle the volumes that would have to switch from the UK land bridge route to the longer sea route. The capacity of the UK road network is obviously significantly higher than even twice as many ferries. Simply redeploying Irish sea ferries to continental routes will fall way short of capacity requirements as the crossing time is 7 times longer so you can only carry 1/7 the freight with the same amount of vessels. Something major will need to be done in the immediate aftermath of a chaotic Brexit to keep the show on the road.

The Berlin analogy really isn't that far off. Berlin was surrounded by hostile territory. Ireland is surrounded by a hostile sea.

blanch152

Sam Russell wrote: »

The GFA makes no reference to T&C, solely that a simple majority votes for it. It also requires that a simple majority of the Irish electorate votes for it as well, but I think that is a given.



If only to rid themselves of the DUP.

I doubt that the National Debt idea would fly in any circumstances. Who would pay - the people of NI?

They were not responsible for it - Oh, wait ..... @ £10 billion a year - that is less than 4 years subvention - but nah - that was a UK Gov decision. They can whistle.

It is ironic that many people believe that the UK can't have its cake and eat it when it leaves the EU, but that the people of this island can have their cake and eat it when it applies to a united Ireland.

It is quite right that the UK loses privileged access to the EU when it leaves, and it carries its share of the EU debts. It is also right that if there is a united Ireland that the North carries its share of debts etc. However, that is a debate for another thread.

Hurrache

trellheim wrote: »

l

M&S, Tesco have to close ( have to create their own supply chains from scratch )

real beans and shotguns stuff

Tesco won't have to close, they've a massive supply chain, and suppliers, within Ireland already. Plus it's Tesco Ireland, not Tesco UK.

oscarBravo

Sam Russell wrote: »

My understanding, for what it is worth, is that, should NI vote for a UI, (and Ireland does), that NI would simply cede to Ireland, with no baggage like a share of the huge National Debt.

What's your basis for that understanding?

Igotadose

Is there a good site summarizing the "Norway" and "Canada" options and some of the things mentioned in the TM speech - "Passporting" for example for the City?
I've seen that chart, but don't understand the details. Pointers to good materials appreciated! Thanks

Skedaddle

murphaph wrote: »

I don't see the ferry companies being able to react quickly enough to handle the volumes that would have to switch from the UK land bridge route to the longer sea route. The capacity of the UK road network is obviously significantly higher than even twice as many ferries. Simply redeploying Irish sea ferries to continental routes will fall way short of capacity requirements as the crossing time is 7 times longer so you can only carry 1/7 the freight with the same amount of vessels. Something major will need to be done in the immediate aftermath of a chaotic Brexit to keep the show on the road.

The Berlin analogy really isn't that far off. Berlin was surrounded by hostile territory. Ireland is surrounded by a hostile sea.

If there's money in it, they'll react. There are always some ferries that can be moved off lighter traffic routes elsewhere in the world. It's not just local ones.

Ferries can be wet leased (with crew) and so on. It's not that unusual.

Also if UK - EU traffic goes down, there may be extra capacity that can be moved to Ireland - France for example.

If there's a long term demand, they'll just order their own vessels and that gives you a new service within maybe 2 years or so.

Throw a bit of Irish government and EU TEN-T money at it too and it will guarantee investment.

This stuff is also of benefit to regions in France too. It's not just the ferries, but there is a serious possibly of French companies replacing many of the UK companies contracts here eg for things like consumer goods which could easily switch to French or Benelux supply chains and away from the UK.

Someone with a lot of knowledge of the ferry and logistics industry posted a few weeks ago further up this thread, and it really didn't seem to be a massive hurdle to provide more Ireland - continental European capacity.

Remember too that truckers' ferries don't need to be quite as luxurious as passenger ships and there are also plenty of possibilities for container only shipping.

Sam Russell

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's your basis for that understanding?

Read the GFA.

No T&C apply.

CelticRambler

Igotadose wrote: »

Is there a good site summarizing the "Norway" and "Canada" options and some of the things mentioned in the TM speech - "Passporting" for example for the City?
I've seen that chart, but don't understand the details. Pointers to good materials appreciated! Thanks

A very simple summary can be found in this reuters report on 'that' chart, which is all about the Red Lines. They are the problem. Everything the UK says it wants in a future relationship is covered by continuing membership of the EU; as you go down the 'stairway' and reject the EU's Blue Lines (e.g. free movement) one after the other, you lose another degree of access.

In her speech on Friday, TM explicity rejected "Norway" and "Switzerland" and "Canada" as suitable models, cherry-picking the restrictions on those agreements that she didn't want to be bound by, and still manages to end up believing that her fantasy bespoke deal is possible.

LeinsterDub

murphaph wrote: »

I don't see the ferry companies being able to react quickly enough to handle the volumes that would have to switch from the UK land bridge route to the longer sea route.

We'll know by October if it's a hard Brexit so that will give us a 6 month phased implementation

Nody

LeinsterDub wrote: »

We'll know by October if it's a hard Brexit so that will give us a 6 month phased implementation

The problem is we don't know how or what UK will do in regards to transit traffic however; that is the big question mark in general.

Leroy42

The speech itself was very clever from a domestic pov, even if it failed to realistically deal with the issues, particularly with NI on which she offered nothing.

But it will, and has been, taken as the UK offering to move the whole thing on, thus cementing in the public's mind that any failure is purely down to the attempt of the EU to punish the UK.

The general view, in the UK, is that the speech hit the right tones and that in effect the UK was the grown up in all this, willing to bend on the red lines (forgetting of course that it was them that set the lines in the first place).

What I am struggling to understand is the apparent acceptance by the likes of Boris, and even more JRM, as the speech clearly sets out that Uk will be getting less access than before, less favourable terms, will continue to have to pay sums to the EU with less say, will have to continue to meet the EU regulations, will accept that ECJ has some say, passporting for CoL will be lost.

How can then simply accept that, surely it is against almost everything they have been stating for the last few years. Whilst it has not been noted as such, and I think it is right as it would achieve nothing positive to do so, this was quite a major climbdown by the UK and May herself. For a government that has been telling anyone that they cannot give any details as to do so would weaken their negotiation position, this speech signalled that the UK was more than willing to accept almost every part of what the EU had been saying all along.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

What I am struggling to understand is the apparent acceptance by the likes of Boris, and even more JRM, as the speech clearly sets out that Uk will be getting less access than before, less favourable terms, will continue to have to pay sums to the EU with less say, will have to continue to meet the EU regulations, will accept that ECJ has some say, passporting for CoL will be lost.

How can then simply accept that, surely it is against almost everything they have been stating for the last few years.

Could it be the product of the Chequers away-day, and the Tories switching into (re)election mode? Time to plaster over as many overt party divisions as possible and prepare a united front against Labour. Feck the good of the country, saving seats is more important.

Panrich

Nody wrote: »

The problem is we don't know how or what UK will do in regards to transit traffic however; that is the big question mark in general.

Do you mean Irish traffic bound for continental Europe and vice versa?

Surely that avenue will shut as a practical option in the event of a hard Brexit. Leaving aside any delays and checks that the UK introduce, there will be huge delays in Dover/Calais where the transit traffic is caught up with the UK traffic. I can't see the UK fasttracking EU traffic on their network at the expense of their own.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

The speech itself was very clever from a domestic pov

... which is all May cares about. EU folks rolling their eyes at her utter failure to address anything real, but May doesn't care about them, just keeping her wobbly government tottering along for another few weeks.

trellheim

... which is all May cares about. EU folks rolling their eyes at her utter failure to address anything real, but May doesn't care about them, just keeping her wobbly government tottering along for another few weeks.

Is keeping the government up and running more important ideologically here ? May's a remainer by heritage so I really don't understand the logic of the UK approach. You do an SM brexit and bang ; referendum terms have been met ( and since Labour wants this too it will sail through ) . End of story, sticky buns. No matter what she does she will be vilified so do what you think is best.

Professor Moriarty

Panrich wrote: »

Do you mean Irish traffic bound for continental Europe and vice versa?

Surely that avenue will shut as a practical option in the event of a hard Brexit. Leaving aside any delays and checks that the UK introduce, there will be huge delays in Dover/Calais where the transit traffic is caught up with the UK traffic. I can't see the UK fasttracking EU traffic on their network at the expense of their own.

There's a comprehensive, if pessimistic, article here on Ireland's potential goods transport problems if there is no customs union.

One graphic shows that it would take twice as long to go Dublin-Cherbourg without going through Britain. Cork's main port, Ringaskiddy, might eliminate a small part of the extra time but it doesn't have anywhere near as much capacity.

oscarBravo

Sam Russell wrote: »

Read the GFA.

No T&C apply.

I've read it. Are you seriously trying to make the case that the entire constitutional process for transferring sovereignty is contained within that document, and that no further discussions or negotiations will be required?

Because, frankly, that's a bizarre idea.

Leroy42

trellheim wrote: »

Is keeping the government up and running more important ideologically here ? May's a remainer by heritage so I really don't understand the logic of the UK approach. You do an SM brexit and bang ; referendum terms have been met ( and since Labour wants this too it will sail through ) . End of story, sticky buns. No matter what she does she will be vilified so do what you think is best.

Is she? She was very anti ECJ during her time as foreign secretary and she played only the smallest role int he remain campaign. One could easily see that as not wanting to be on the wrong side if Cameron won, but not looking to go over the top either.

This will of the people nonsense, was the will of the people that they pay and extra £1bn to NI just to keep her in power? Come on!

Actions are the best indicator of a persons real feelings, and one can only summise that May is very much an Anti-EU person at heart.

blanch152

Nody wrote: »

The problem is we don't know how or what UK will do in regards to transit traffic however; that is the big question mark in general.

Can you imagine how the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail will react to pictures of transit traffic bound for Ireland sailing through Dover without checks, while trucks bound for Britain are still queueing outside Calais to get out of France?

Nody

blanch152 wrote: »

Can you imagine how the likes of the Telegraph and the Mail will react to pictures of transit traffic bound for Ireland sailing through Dover without checks, while trucks bound for Britain are still queueing outside Calais to get out of France?

Well seeing that I predict that UK will let all trucks come in from all EU countries with in 24h of a hard brexit I don't think that would be much of an issue (or UK will start to seriously grind to a halt with perishable foods going bad etc.). The question is more on the longer term solution to be implemented and dealt with.

Calina

TIR will take care of transit in principle but not the initial traffic jams in Kent.

Havockk

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've read it. Are you seriously trying to make the case that the entire constitutional process for transferring sovereignty is contained within that document, and that no further discussions or negotiations will be required?

Because, frankly, that's a bizarre idea.

Hopefully. One would certainly expect the UK to be generous with helping to pay their share to smooth the transition process, after all it's down to their negligence that the place has been mismanaged for almost 100 years.

Skedaddle

To be honest, I stopped reading this as a serious article after:

"For many Irish farmers and food producers, Britain is a time-saving flyover from their rainswept island on the periphery of Europe to millions of hungry consumers on the Continent."

Port facilities are pretty simple affairs, particularly when they don't need customs processing. There's significant ability to move resources to those ports and I've seen timings that are much better than that.

The big risk is being stuck in crazy delays in the UK after Brexit as they've no suitable facilities to process traffic with full customs.

The big impact isn't that Irish traffic won't be able to get in or through the UK, it's that ALL trucks will be piled up for long periods at British ports.

mickoneill31

Some good explainers on what controls are required at customs for the various scenarios available to the UK.

https://twitter.com/hayward_katy/status/969961465233989632?s=19

Professor Moriarty

Skedaddle wrote: »

To be honest, I stopped reading this as a serious article after:

"For many Irish farmers and food producers, Britain is a time-saving flyover from their rainswept island on the periphery of Europe to millions of hungry consumers on the Continent."

Port facilities are pretty simple affairs, particularly when they don't need customs processing. There's significant ability to move resources to those ports and I've seen timings that are much better than that.

The big risk is being stuck in crazy delays in the UK after Brexit as they've no suitable facilities to process traffic with full customs.

The big impact isn't that Irish traffic won't be able to get in or through the UK, it's that ALL trucks will be piled up for long periods at British ports.

It's a pity you stopped reading after only three lines as it goes on to explain, in reasonable and accessible depth, the various issues regarding transport of goods to Europe.

The timings were supplied by Politico Resarch and are supported by the Head of The Irish Road Haulage Association who should, hopefully, know what she's talking about. Amongst others, interesting contributions too from Revenue, the CSO and the Irish Maritime Development Office. None of these contributors are very optimistic in the context of a hard Brexit. IMO even more so if the hard Brexit is acrimonious as we could be dependent on the kindness of strangers or even hostile competitors.

First Up

Port congestion is pretty well inevitable if there are customs procedures in the UK. Sealed containers in transit might avoid some of it but I doubt if the UK authorities will make much effort to facilitate them.

But there's more to it than that. Many goods from outside the EU come to Ireland as part of bulk shipments into the UK where they undergo EU import procedures and are then re-distributed to Ireland as well as throughout the UK.

Brexit effectively takes the UK out of that supply chain so new channels will be needed, either directly to Ireland or from another EU country. Huge disruption.

Inquitus

First Up wrote: »

Port congestion is pretty well inevitable if there are customs procedures in the UK. Sealed containers in transit might avoid some of it but I doubt if the UK authorities will make much effort to facilitate them.

But there's more to it than that. Many goods from outside the EU come to Ireland as part of bulk shipments into the UK where they undergo EU import procedures and are then re-distributed to Ireland as well as throughout the UK.

Brexit effectively takes the UK out of that supply chain so new channels will be needed, either directly to Ireland or from another EU country. Huge disruption.

Time wise there is not much difference between France to Rosslaire and Dover to Dublin driving up through England. The main issue is it costs more to do it by boat instead of on the road, so while I think a lot of the gap could be plugged by additional shipping routes, it would certainly be at a cost to consumers wallets.

Leroy42

Looking a the tweets about the port requirements in the different options, one thing that seems to be apparent is that the EU is open to special arrangements (Turkey etc).

So isn't the position that the UK are simply looking for a special, special arrangement and isn't that 1)possible & 2) probable given the importance of the UK economy to the wider EU?

It is not really as black and white as Barnier is painting it, is it?

First Up

Inquitus wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Port congestion is pretty well inevitable if there are customs procedures in the UK. Sealed containers in transit might avoid some of it but I doubt if the UK authorities will make much effort to facilitate them.

But there's more to it than that. Many goods from outside the EU come to Ireland as part of bulk shipments into the UK where they undergo EU import procedures and are then re-distributed to Ireland as well as throughout the UK.

Brexit effectively takes the UK out of that supply chain so new channels will be needed, either directly to Ireland or from another EU country. Huge disruption.

Time wise there is not much difference between France to Rosslaire and Dover to Dublin driving up through England. The main issue is it costs more to do it by boat instead of on the road, so while I think a lot of the gap could be plugged by additional shipping routes, it would certainly be at a cost to consumers wallets.

The point I'm making is that there's more to it than shipping routes. All of the logistics have to be re-engineered, including replacing UK importers/wholesalers/brokers/distributors with an entirely new network in Holland, Germany or wherever.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

Looking a the tweets about the port requirements in the different options, one thing that seems to be apparent is that the EU is open to special arrangements (Turkey etc).

So isn't the position that the UK are simply looking for a special, special arrangement and isn't that 1)possible & 2) probable given the importance of the UK economy to the wider EU?

It is not really as black and white as Barnier is painting it, is it?

Turkey's "special arrangements" are as part of the Customs Union, which the UK has ruled out.

Really Interested

Leroy42 wrote: »

Looking a the tweets about the port requirements in the different options, one thing that seems to be apparent is that the EU is open to special arrangements (Turkey etc).

So isn't the position that the UK are simply looking for a special, special arrangement and isn't that 1)possible & 2) probable given the importance of the UK economy to the wider EU?

It is not really as black and white as Barnier is painting it, is it?

Why should the UK get favoured free movement of goods and services with no free movement of persons?

Could the UK get a more favourable deal than say Canada or Turkey of course yes but they will have to accept more than either of the others accept in return.

For example Turkey does benefit from a easier movement of person than most other third countries. The problem is the UK has set so many red lines it has decided the agreement it willing to accept from the EU, by setting ceilings.

mickoneill31

Leroy42 wrote: »

Looking a the tweets about the port requirements in the different options, one thing that seems to be apparent is that the EU is open to special arrangements (Turkey etc).

So isn't the position that the UK are simply looking for a special, special arrangement and isn't that 1)possible & 2) probable given the importance of the UK economy to the wider EU?

It is not really as black and white as Barnier is painting it, is it?

Barnier is negotiating too. Why do the UK any favours? If its in the EUs interest then they can give special arrangements. But they won't, and shouldn't do it just because the UK asks for it.
I think the trouble is the UK negotiators haven't moved past step one. They've their list of requirements and don't seem to have any that aren't a red line. It's hard to negotiate with that hand.

Professor Moriarty

Inquitus wrote: »

Time wise there is not much difference between France to Rosslaire and Dover to Dublin driving up through England. The main issue is it costs more to do it by boat instead of on the road, so while I think a lot of the gap could be plugged by additional shipping routes, it would certainly be at a cost to consumers wallets.

Rosslare-Cherbourg is 18 hours. Dublin- Calais is 10 hours via Britain.

Even at that, is there sufficient infrastructure in place to cope with far greater commercial traffic from Dublin to Rosslare? Does Rosslare port have the capacity for much more commercial traffic? Presently, 8 times more truck traffic leaves Dublin than Rosslare.

J Mysterio

Leroy42 wrote: »

Looking a the tweets about the port requirements in the different options, one thing that seems to be apparent is that the EU is open to special arrangements (Turkey etc).

So isn't the position that the UK are simply looking for a special, special arrangement and isn't that 1)possible & 2) probable given the importance of the UK economy to the wider EU?

It is not really as black and white as Barnier is painting it, is it?

They won't compromise the four freedoms, they just won't.

Really Interested

First Up wrote: »

Turkey's "special arrangements" are as part of the Customs Union, which the UK has ruled out.

It is “a” customs union as between Turkey and the EU. That CU does not cover certain products. It would I believe be more correct to call it a bilateral customs union.

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Inquitus wrote: »

Time wise there is not much difference between France to Rosslaire and Dover to Dublin driving up through England. The main issue is it costs more to do it by boat instead of on the road, so while I think a lot of the gap could be plugged by additional shipping routes, it would certainly be at a cost to consumers wallets.

But is there sufficient infrastructure in place to cope with far greater commercial traffic from Dublin to Rosslare? Does Rosslare port have the capacity for much more commercial traffic? Presently, 8 times more truck traffic leaves Dublin than Rosslare.

Most likely it will involve replacing some traffic currently to/from the UK with new services to continental ports.

Professor Moriarty

First Up wrote: »

Most likely it will involve replacing some traffic currently to/from the UK with new services to continental ports.

It's in our best interests to begin that process asap anyway. We shouldn't be dependent on Britain going forward no matter what kind of Brexit we end up with.

Really Interested

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's in our best interests to begin that process asap anyway. We shouldn't be dependent on Britain going forward no matter what kind of Brexit we end up with.

I believe there is a new route cork to Spain and also expansion on the Dublin France route from this year.

Would not be surprised if main selling point is driver rest times, anyone involved in such haulage on here who can give info.