Brexit discussion thread III

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but he'd be a much more palatable choice than far left Corbyn.

UK voters seem to disagree with you.

flatty

Leroy42 wrote: »

In terms of the US/UK relationship, I think one area that we might be underestimating is just how much on a thorn the EU is to the US.

Having the UK outside it, and potentially prosper, would be a major headache to the EU and potentially lead to a significant reduction in its strength (the UK leaving is undoubtedly making the EU weaker).

So it might be in the longer-term interest for the US, at least under the line, to be helping the UK out.

Possibly. The other thing that the brexiteers seem to be wilfully ignoring, is the fact that even if the trump administration signs a beneficial trade agreement, (and he might do that, who knows?), it will not be a stable long term arrangement. Any incoming president may elect to try and change it. Europe are a more reliable and stable partner.

Skedaddle

Considering the UK has rebuked him for the steel tariffs, I doubt it somehow.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-donald-trump-deep-concern-us-steel-tariffs-a8239161.html

https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-tells-donald-trump-of-deep-concern-over-us-trade-tariffs-11276237


And as the Express puts it "Theresa May CLASHES with Donald Trump over US tariffs as global fears of TRADE WAR grow"

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/927033/donald-trump-usa-trade-tariffs-steel-aluminium-theresa-may-uk-european-union

Professor Moriarty

flatty wrote: »

Possibly. The other thing that the brexiteers seem to be wilfully ignoring, is the fact that even if the trump administration signs a beneficial trade agreement, (and he might do that, who knows?), it will not be a stable long term arrangement. Any incoming president may elect to try and change it. Europe are a more reliable and stable partner.

That won't be happening according to the last UK ambassador to the US. From the article:


The most recently retired British ambassador to the United States has described the prospect of a “generous” free trade deal with Donald Trump after Brexit as an “illusion”.


And in a more general theme:

“Sadly our government is so absorbed by Brexit, so absorbed with the different positions of members of cabinet or the importance of getting Brexit right that we don’t seem to have the freedom or capacity to do other things,” he said. "As a result of that, we are not perceived to be pulling our weight diplomatically as we have in the past,” he said, citing the situation in Yemen and other international crises and conflicts.


Yes indeed. Boris is only focusing on Boris's career. Everything else is subordinate.

trellheim

Macron has said financial services cant be in the deal ooo cats among pigeons now


https://www.afp.com/en/news/826/brexit-free-trade-deal-cannot-include-financial-services-france-doc-1212kl1

Memnoch

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but he'd be a much more palatable choice than far left Corbyn. Recall that both Tony Blair and David Cameron won elections by moving to the centre. Now, both main parties have headed for the fringes.

Certainly a lot more palatable to offshore billionares who own the vast majority of British media outlets.

Tony Blair, a war criminal at large, who ushered in the era of privitisation by stealth of the NHS, took the UK into a war of pillage and greed in Iraq that resulted in the murder of countless innocent civilians. He also did his best to kill once and for all any attempts at democracy within the Labour party moving the UK closer to the two party model of the USA where both parties represent the establishment only and any kind of democratic alternative is shut out by a deeply corrupt system. Oh, and as a 'center-left' prime minister oversaw extreme deregulation of the financial sector, which lead to an inevitable crash and formed the justification for almost a decade of cruel austerity on the British public.

David Cameron meanwhile has brought the UK to its current predicament with his masterstroke brexit referendum. He also oversaw a program of severe austerity which was simply poorly concealed social cleansing resulting in the deaths of thousands of vulnerable people, further privitisation, and the extremely inhumane treatment of people with mental illnesses and disability in the UK, hundreds of whom were driven to suicide.

Not that you will be able to provide any examples of Corbyn's so called 'far left' policies. But I think any one with a shred of a decent moral center would consider him a vastly superior alternative to these bought and paid for 'centrists' who are only in it to further their own personal wealth and power.

The use of the word 'centrist' is vomit inducing. Corrupt Charlatans is far more accurate.

Perhaps you should examine your own far-anaracho-libertarian bias.

ArmaniJeanss

VinLieger wrote: »

I will never understand what Labour were thinking electing corbyn, if they had gone centrist they would have won in a landslide, the constant push to the extremes of either political idealogy hurts everyone

The snap election may not have been called by the Tories if a different Labour leader was in situ though. May might have been happy to continue with her small majority rather than risk an election against say Keir Starmer. Even the manifesto and the nasty things it tried to sneak through could be partly put down to the belief that it was an open goal. They got fooled by Corbyn to an extent - he'd been a poor politician and terrible opposition leader, but they forgot that he is a brilliant campaigner.

Also in a general sense this idea (not necessarily just from you) that Corbyn failed to gain what should have been an easy win is really rewriting history - when the election was called it was generally thought that the reasonably popular Tories under their capable leader could end up with around 400 seats including sweeps through Labour heartlands in Wales and the North East. Getting it hung was a remarkable achievement by JC.

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

I watched some of that from the House yesterday. There was almost a gleefulness that the UK had finally put the EU back in its box. May have delivered and all would be well.

At times it is quite surreal.

Particularly when May was asked about the border and she gave the example of the US/Canada border, to which the the response came that that was policed by guard dogs,armed patrols and physical barrier. Hardly what they are going for? ( this has been discussed already in the thread, only mentioning it in terms of the nature of the 'debate' in the House)

Leo shot it down too, he said after visiting the Canada/US border last summer it was clear that it was a hard border with visible infrastructure and customs posts.

Capt'n Midnight

Vauxhall chief warns of Brexit threat to Ellesmere Port

He added: "No one is going to make huge investments without knowing what will be the final competitiveness of the Brexit outcome."

Yes probably angling for subsidies and deals, but still. Also means less money for the NHS.

Water John

EU position paper, in the morning. Then press conference with Tusk.

'On Wednesday morning, the first draft of the EU’s guidelines, which are said to be “short and general”, will be sent to the member states ahead of a detailed discussion by diplomats in Brussels.

Donald Tusk, the European council president, during a visit to Luxembourg, will then address the press and spell out the limitations of any deal with the UK given the uncompromising nature of May’s red-lines. One senior EU source said: “Now reality will really hit.” Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/06/theresa-may-conservative-politics-brexit-solutions-leaked-eu-report

Tomorrow is another interesting day.

J Mysterio

Leak is good for the most part. I'm quite surprised that there is included an EU list on 'checks for the border' however...

J Mysterio

Boris slapped down in cross party letter signed by British MEPs. Criticism for inflammatory comments and 'words of war'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-war-words-uk-image-british-meps-brexiteers-a8242541.html

Capt'n Midnight

US offers UK inferior open skies deal after Brexit

The talks were cut short after US negotiators offered only a standard bilateral agreement. These typically require airlines to be majority owned and controlled by parties from their country of origin.

So no special deal.

And deal only applies to UK owned airlines.

And the US don't consider IAG (British Airways, Aer Lingus, Iberian) , Virgin, or Norwegian as UK owned.





Rinse and repeat for every EU trade deal that the UK needs to renegotiate.

trellheim

Ian Duncan Smith on BBC1 NI at the moment . FFS is the only thing that comes to mind.

Bigus

trellheim wrote: »

Ian Duncan Smith on BBC1 NI at the moment . FFS is the only thing that comes to mind.

Absolutely,

Also on Spotlight tonight 2 unionists, 1 alliance party 1 sdlp and 1 Sinn Fein panel, overall the unionist really really on the back foot and the others seeing the EU proposal for NI as the dream ticket for NI industry and commerce ,aasuming of course the uk doesn't put up tarriffs in the Irish Sea against NI.

Capt'n Midnight

EU trade deal must include financial services, says Hammond

It's the old argument of "but we need this" while offering nothing in return

Junkyard Tom

trellheim wrote: »

Ian Duncan Smith on BBC1 NI at the moment . FFS is the only thing that comes to mind.

Jeffrey Donaldson looking quite red-faced on Spotlight. I think the realities of Brexit may be starting to frighten the life out of the DUP.

Jeffrey has been living in a Westminster bubble for the last few months, probably surrounded by imperially-minded Tory types.

Jeffrey going to Westminster is like Mr Benn going to 19th Century Britain. Doesn't Mr Benn look like an Orangeman and all?

Havockk

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Jeffrey Donaldson looking quite red-faced on Spotlight. I think the realities of Brexit may be starting to frighten the life out of the DUP.

Jeffrey has been living in a Westminster bubble for the last few months, probably surrounded by imperially-minded Tory types.

Jeffrey going to Westminster is like Mr Benn going to 19th Century Britain. Doesn't Mr Benn look like an Orangeman and all?

There must be tremendous internal pressures going on. Foster looked nervous at the meeting today, anonymous insider breaking ranks on Nolan tomorrow. Lots of internal leaks, Donaldson not impressive at all. Quite enjoying this to be fair

Leonard Hofstadter

trellheim wrote: »

Ian Duncan Smith on BBC1 NI at the moment . FFS is the only thing that comes to mind.

What stunningly ignorant thing has he said now?

murphaph

trellheim wrote: »

Ian Duncan Smith on BBC1 NI at the moment . FFS is the only thing that comes to mind.

Remember this idiot managed to become leader of the party now in government!

FrancieBrady

Havockk wrote: »

There must be tremendous internal pressures going on. Foster looked nervous at the meeting today, anonymous insider breaking ranks on Nolan tomorrow. Lots of internal leaks, Donaldson not impressive at all. Quite enjoying this to be fair

What is that about? The 'agreement' that wasn't?

Havockk

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is that about? The 'agreement' that wasn't?

Yes, allegedly someone on the inside has divulged info to Nolan, should be on this morning.

Leroy42

Another part of the speech, which has been quietly ignored in the UK it seems, is that May has now confirmed that the recent EU rules regarding cap on roaming charges, data etc, will, after Brexit no longer be in operation.

That will impact us as well since a lot of our travel is to the UK. It tool many years for the EU to actually get this through and the UK public are willing to simply cast it aside.

And yesterday, the MP international trade commission came out with a statement saying that the cabinet total lack of clarity or planning will likely lead to a significant drop (I think they mentioned cliff edge) to 70 countries that the UK currently trade with.

Everywhere you look Brexit is a negative. That German journalist that asked the salient question at May's recent speech, which she conspicuously failed to answer, was right on the money. "Is it worth it?". As simple question to which all May could respond was that she was going ahead with it. She couldn't give any reason why it was worth it.

I just cannot understand why there is not more people asking for the whole thing to be delayed. It is clear that the government have made a balls of this. You can argue over who is to blame for this, but only the most myopic of brexiteers could claim, with any honesty, that the process is running as they hoped. May herself climbed down on a number of major items. She has agreed to make a payment. She has agreed to continue EU citizens rights during the transition (both of which were going to be used as power plays!).

Why not postpone it until the details have been worked out, they have completed preliminary trade talks with the other nations to see where they stand and then come back to it?

blanch152

J Mysterio wrote: »

Fintan O'Toole destroys UK approach to the border in todays Irish Times.

Specifically that the UK already badly failed their own internal e-border experiment - overspending by 100's of millions and going way over time.

Also rubbishes Trusted Trader scheme etc.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-british-can-t-deliver-promises-of-frictionless-trade-1.3415561?mode=amp

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/dan-obrien/developments-amid-the-noise-but-anything-can-still-happen-on-brexit-36640421.html

This article by Dan O'Brien is of greater relevance.

"It was, he wrote, not "an impassable obstacle to a genuine Brexit" because "the UK could simply refuse to have any additional border controls". From a British perspective, he is correct: a state that is not part of a deep free trade arrangement with other states can decide not to police its borders.

If Britain ends up outside those EU arrangements it could choose to forego some loss of tax revenue that would result from not policing the Border on this island. Given that the costs associated with protecting customs posts - financial and political - would likely be greater than any revenue raised, it is perfectly possible that a British government could decide against policing the Border.

Matters are different for the Republic. Ireland will remain in the EU's deep free market arrangements, both the customs union and the single market. As such, it will have obligations to the rest of the bloc to police its collective external Border."


Essentially, the UK could keep its promise about a free border by not policing on its side. However, we in the South would be obliged by our EU partners to put a border in place.

Look carefully at the December agreement. It is all about UK pledges on an open border, nowhere does it say that the EU will not impose a border.

Hurrache

blanch152 wrote: »

If Britain ends up outside those EU arrangements it could choose to forego some loss of tax revenue that would result from not policing the Border on this island. Given that the costs associated with protecting customs posts - financial and political - would likely be greater than any revenue raised, it is perfectly possible that a British government could decide against policing the Border.

The border is not just economic though, it will open their border to anyone who may want to travel into the UK, all the immigrants they're afraid of, so it's a self defeating option considering they wanted to take back control of immigration.

Seth Brundle

Hurrache wrote: »

The border is not just economic though, it will open their border to anyone who may want to travel into the UK, all the immigrants they're afraid of, so it's a self defeating option considering they wanted to take back control of immigration.

On that basis, it is highly likely!

Leroy42

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/dan-obrien/developments-amid-the-noise-but-anything-can-still-happen-on-brexit-36640421.html

This article by Dan O'Brien is of greater relevance.

"It was, he wrote, not "an impassable obstacle to a genuine Brexit" because "the UK could simply refuse to have any additional border controls". From a British perspective, he is correct: a state that is not part of a deep free trade arrangement with other states can decide not to police its borders.

If Britain ends up outside those EU arrangements it could choose to forego some loss of tax revenue that would result from not policing the Border on this island. Given that the costs associated with protecting customs posts - financial and political - would likely be greater than any revenue raised, it is perfectly possible that a British government could decide against policing the Border.

Matters are different for the Republic. Ireland will remain in the EU's deep free market arrangements, both the customs union and the single market. As such, it will have obligations to the rest of the bloc to police its collective external Border."


Essentially, the UK could keep its promise about a free border by not policing on its side. However, we in the South would be obliged by our EU partners to put a border in place.

Look carefully at the December agreement. It is all about UK pledges on an open border, nowhere does it say that the EU will not impose a border.

Wouldn't that mean they have a completely open border though. How could they operate one in Kent but not in NI? Surely that would mean that everyone would simply divert traffic through NI to avoid any customs?

And then you have the optics of the Government basically saying that are comfortable with a back door system, that it is not worth the money to police. So then any trade deals they sign with other countries cannot be FTA as the other country cannot be certain of the standards of the goods arriving since they may not have been checked.

Enzokk

Don't know if this has been posted but whatever new tone Theresa May has struck with her speech it seems the EU hasn't fallen for it. The EU sees it for local consumption and not for the EU as their still isn't any details on how she wants to achieve her outcome.

EU accuses Theresa May of ‘double cherry-picking’

Theresa May’s Mansion House speech on Brexit last week amounted to “double cherry-picking” with “no change in substance” from her government’s previous position, according to a confidential European Commission assessment circulated to diplomats from EU countries.

It concluded that although she took a more realistic tone, the prime minister had ultimately confirmed Britain’s red lines and once again “addressed more her domestic audience, trying to bridge the gaps between the two poles of the debate on Brexit in the U.K.”

Back to square one?

Skedaddle

What's going on in the UK at the moment is really bizarre and pretty much without precedent. They are not negotiating with the EU, rather that are making the same inflexible statements, which seem to be aimed at tabloid readers. They just keep rewording them.

The negotiation team at the EU is extremely technical and expects facts. Barnier was even directly involved in writing the Treaty of Lisbon, so it's not like they can somehow bamboozle him with fancy rewording using different jargon.

The whole situation is just mind bogglingly bizarre.

They don't seem to even understand that this is not a political negotiation. It's a technical discussion about trade and market access.

So, we've spent all the time since the Brexit 'negotiations' started going around, and around and around in circles as the UK keeps turning up with the same ridiculous self-contradicting points over and over again.

murphaph

The UK can't turn a blind eye to the Irish border if they are trading with the EU on WTO terms. Tariffs must be levied as fairly on goods entering the UK from the EU as on goods entering the UK from Australia. A wide open back door for EU goods (imagine the trade in German cars passing through Ireland). It won't be tolerated by non-EU WTO members for a second.

Leroy42

1 sign that the UK is not facing reality is the NI border issue.

May, and the UK government, continues to declare that it is 'absolutely committed' to avoiding a hard border, yet at the same time have laid out red lines which almost guarantee that exact outcome.

How can they be expect to be taken seriously when they can't even be honest on such a clear issue at that.

You may or may not agree with the EU position but, to date at least, they have been very consistent (some would argue intransigent but that is another point). The UK have continued with their position, whilst at the same time completely changing it.

How anyone in the UK has any faith in this government being able to carry this off is beyond me. From Davies lies about reports, to the climb downs etc, it has been one disaster after the other and I really can't understand why the public are so seemingly accepting it all.

Sam Russell

Irish Times article with misleading title.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/brexit-impasse-ireland-has-boxed-itself-in-on-border-issue-1.3416937

Brexit impasse: Ireland has boxed itself in on Border issue

There is a reason that the British government has not been able to produce its own detailed proposals. Its position is fundamentally inconsistent. The logic of the UK’s position since Theresa May set out her “red lines” in her Lancaster House speech is a hard border of some kind.

If the UK is to leave the single market, customs union and jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice then EU law and World Trade Organisation rules mean that border checks between EU states (including Ireland) and the UK are unavoidable.

The British government has not been honest about this, but is now boxed in by its own dishonesty. After centuries of being the big player in a bilateral relationship with Ireland, the British government appears to have assumed that it could get away with making reassuring noises about not wanting “a return to the borders of the past” but then brushing aside Irish protests if such a promise got in the way of their desire for a meaningful Brexit.

He misses the point that a hard border between Ireland and NI is logistically impossible as it is a porous border and always will be. It cannot be policed effectively - we know that because it never has been, even when backed up by heavily armed soldiers.

The fact the Irish and NI EW trade dwarfs NS trade is hardly the point, it is significantly easier to police a border at the few ports and airports on the Irish sea than at every ditch and hedge along 350 km of countryside - and that is before you add the little matter of the paramilitary activity - whether armed or just organised smuggling.

There is already a border EW for agriculture products.

trellheim

1 sign that the UK is not facing reality is the NI border issue.

May, and the UK government, continues to declare that it is 'absolutely committed' to avoiding a hard border, yet at the same time have laid out red lines which almost guarantee that exact outcome.

How can they be expect to be taken seriously when they can't even be honest on such a clear issue at that.

You may or may not agree with the EU position but, to date at least, they have been very consistent (some would argue intransigent but that is another point). The UK have continued with their position, whilst at the same time completely changing it.

How anyone in the UK has any faith in this government being able to carry this off is beyond me. From Davies lies about reports, to the climb downs etc, it has been one disaster after the other and I really can't understand why the public are so seemingly accepting it all.

Some of what you are seeing is passive obstruction from the Civil Service ( i.e. Brexit is such a stupid thing then the best way to stop it is to do nothing )

Lemming

trellheim wrote: »

Some of what you are seeing is passive obstruction from the Civil Service ( i.e. Brexit is such a stupid thing then the best way to stop it is to do nothing )

From what I've been told by relatives who would have dealings with their counterparts around the globe (and consequently have had to deal with Brexit questions), the general viewpoint seemed to be that whilst there are a lot of very smart & talented people in the British civil service who are at the Brexit coalface, they are being utterly hamstrung by a lack of direction from their political masters who are of course still busy fighting amongst themselves. Where they have been busy generating reports, those reports have then been summarily & routinely dismissed when the cabinet don't like what they read.

So to say this is civil servants dragging their heels is grossly unfair and allowing the real culprits to skip off scot-free; to indulge in further smearing of lies across big red buses no less one could easily imagine.

Leroy42

I was just about the post the same thing Lemming. I agree that the civil service probably is against it (against change at all) but clearly if that is the case they are being ably supported by the total lack of leadership and direction from the government.

I mean, just the last week alone has shown it for what it is. To great fanfare they had a cabinet meeting in Chequers, we had the Brexiteers coming out and saying that everything was agreed, Divergence was the victor,” one said afterwards.

Yet only a few days later May gave a speech saying that in many areas they were happy to accept the rules, even willing to pay to be members of authorities.

Now, with such shifting positions, how is any workforce supposed to deliver on the that?

Nate--IRL--

blanch152 wrote: »

Essentially, the UK could keep its promise about a free border by not policing on its side. However, we in the South would be obliged by our EU partners to put a border in place.

Look carefully at the December agreement. It is all about UK pledges on an open border, nowhere does it say that the EU will not impose a border.

The UK will not be in a position to do this, unless it offers the same for all other countries in the WTO.

Nate

Leroy42

blanch152 wrote: »

Essentially, the UK could keep its promise about a free border by not policing on its side. However, we in the South would be obliged by our EU partners to put a border in place.

So essentially, UK are turning into a lawless state in terms of borders.

And they expect other countries to simply trust them on regulations, on enforcement?

If I was a UK citizen I would be getting extremely worried in the lengths that this government appears willing to go to make Brexit happen. Far from being positive it appears, from all available reports, that it will be bad for the economy and would appear that the government are prepared to put the security and safety (in terms of the type of goods that can come in) at risk simply to put one over the EU.

This is madness. Taking back control seems to be morphing into not controlling at all

Nate--IRL--

To follow up on that point, and to put it to bed finally..

From comments on this article... https://www.ft.com/content/9cf07fbc-1c8f-11e8-aaca-4574d7dabfb6

A point that DAG has not addressed – and I’m sure he knows. Borders and Customs Frontiers under the WTO rules.

It has become a standard argument of Brexiteers that, if there is a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, it is because the RoI and the EU chose to erect one. These are the same Brexiteers who like to ‘witter-on’ about the UK trading on WTO rules.

The problem is the WTO rules themselves. These are set out in the Uruguay Round 1994 GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) which established the WTO and largely incorporated the earlier 1947 GATT. The basic feature of the GATT (1947 and 1994) is most favored nation or MFN – which is sometimes described as the rule that ‘if you bring candy to school, you have to bring candy for everyone.’ The thing is that the 1994 GATT does not apply this principle to tariffs, but also to qualitative restrictions and bureaucratic measures like say, customs inspections or freedom from those inspections. The key aspect of MFN is that any advantages given in trade by the EU (including Ireland) to the UK, or vice-versa need to be extended to other WTO members – no customs border in Ireland, no customs with Colombia, Peru, Afghanistan, the USA, etc.

Again, one effect of this is equality of treatment – you need a customs frontier between the EU and UK, both ways, or you effectively cannot have customs at all.

The exception to this requirement is set up in Article X X IV of the GATT which allows for customs unions.

This is laid out in key articles of the 1947 and 1994 GATT:

Article I ¶1 With respect to customs duties and charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with importation or exportation or imposed on the international transfer of payments for imports or exports, and with respect to the method of levying such duties and charges, and with respect to all rules and formalities in connection with importation and exportation, and with respect to all matters referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article III,* any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted by any contracting party to any product originating in or destined for any other country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like product originating in or destined for the territories of all other contracting parties

To put it in simple terms – if the UK or EU do not apply customs formalities post-Brexit (and they are not in a customs union) to one another, they cannot apply the customs formalities to any other countries comparable goods.

Article III* ¶2 The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall not be subject, directly or indirectly, to internal taxes or other internal charges of any kind in excess of those applied, directly or indirectly, to like domestic products. Moreover, no contracting party shall otherwise apply internal taxes or other internal charges to imported or domestic products in a manner contrary to the principles set forth in paragraph 1.*

Article III* ¶4 The products of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of all laws, regulations and requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use. The provisions of this paragraph shall not prevent the application of differential internal transportation charges which are based exclusively on the economic operation of the means of transport and not on the nationality of the product.

Nate

Leroy42

Nate, how does the trade deals with Canada or Turkey (for example) not fall foul of the WTO then? Surely by offering a deal to Canada they must offer the same deal to every country?

I fully accept that my understanding must be wrong, as they exist, but I don't understand it.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

Nate, how does the trade deals with Canada or Turkey (for example) not fall foul of the WTO then? Surely by offering a deal to Canada they must offer the same deal to every country?

I fully accept that my understanding must be wrong, as they exist, but I don't understand it.

Trade deals and Customs Unions are specifically excluded from the regulation of WTO in relation to the "Most Favoured Country" rule; that is why both those deals work as one is a CU and the other is a TD.

Leroy42

Tusk has finished his press conference. According to the Guardian reporting, he has been pretty definitive on the options available to UK. Basically saying that FTA is the only option.

He implied May was being unrealistic about what she could achieve from Brexit. In the Q&A he insisted that the EU would not allow full single market access on a sector-by-sector basis, as May has broadly proposed. He said:
One thing must be absolutely clear, and I’m not sure that we are on the same position here; there is no possibility to have some sort of exclusive single market for some part of our economies. And I hope that during our negotiations and debate among 27 EU leaders that we will make this position more clear for our partners in London.

He also said he understood why, from a political point of view, May’s objective was to show that Brexit could be a success and that it was the right choice for the UK . But he went on: “But, sorry, it is not our objective.”

Leroy42

Nody wrote: »

Trade deals and Customs Unions are specifically excluded from the regulation of WTO in relation to the "Most Favoured Country" rule; that is why both those deals work as one is a CU and the other is a TD.

OK, so wouldn't a trade deal remove the need for border controls in NI then, without having to have it open to everyone? And there will be a trade deal, that is a given

Water John

A trade deal doesn't cover everything and has to be policed in some way, a border.

Bettel the Luxembourg PM summed it up best:
The UK were in, and wanted a lot of opt-outs. Now they are out, but they want a lot of opt-ins, he says.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

OK, so wouldn't a trade deal remove the need for border controls in NI then, without having to have it open to everyone? And there will be a trade deal, that is a given

There is the stated aim, on both sides, to have a trade deal, but so far only the EU is doing anything to make it happen.

And yes-no-maybe to the border controls. It all depends on exactly what kind of a trade deal is agreed. If it's anything other than 100%, then you're still going to need border controls to make sure that whatever is not covered isn't getting through.

In addition, as one of Sky's commentators pointed out this afternoon, the actual border checks aren't the beginning and end of the process. Even with a (theoretical) frictionless border, an exporter/importer still needs to make all kinds of declarations, and those need to be contolled somewhere. While that can often be at an office in some out-of-the-way county town, and based on electronic submissions, it's another layer of red-tape and compliance than can be just enough to make it not worthwhile pursuing a new market (so a brake on growth for a UK-based business thinking of expanding into the EU) or to justify relocating production and/or offices into the target market (so another brake on UK growth).

Havockk

Leroy42 wrote: »

Tusk has finished his press conference. According to the Guardian reporting, he has been pretty definitive on the options available to UK. Basically saying that FTA is the only option.

Jesus, that's brutal.

Call me Al

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

The UK will not be in a position to do this, unless it offers the same for all other countries in the WTO.

Nate

What consequences woukd follow if these WTO requirements were ignored?
Would it solely be financial?

First Up

The only basis on which the UK will get a free trade deal is through full membership of the Customs Union, which requires them to follow the EU's Common External Tariff (meaning no scope to negotiate their own trade deals). Otherwise goods imported into the UK from outside the EU (on whatever terms the UK has set with those countries) could freely enter the EU market.

Anything less than full CU membership means border controls. The integrity of the Single Market is not negotiable.

Leroy42

First Up wrote: »

The only basis on which the UK will get a free trade deal is through full membership of the Customs Union, which requires them to follow the EU's Common External Tarrif (meaning no scope to negotiate their own trade deals). Otherwise goods imported into the UK from outside the EU (on whatever terms the UK has set with those countries) could freely enter the EU market.

Anything less than full CU membership means border controls. The integrity of the Single Market is not negotiable.

Not sure that is correct. Tusk is saying that FTA is the only option on the table, since customs union is ruled out.

AFAIK, FTA simply means that there are no tariffs on the goods under the agreement. It does not cover standards or have any bearing on borders, except that no fees are collected at the point of checking. I guess it leads to faster customs and a working towards improving the ability to access each others markets. But it doesn't remove the need for a border.

That is the great achievement of the CU. A fully open and frictionless system across multiple countries. It is actually quite a feat of politics that it was achieved at all (another thread)

Nody

Call me Al wrote: »

What consequences woukd follow if these WTO requirements were ignored?
Would it solely be financial?

Well they would be sued to the WTO court and be handed down financial fines to be paid to compensate for it. If they ignore that they would be kicked out of the WTO and since every other country in the world can sue them (inc. EU countries if their goods are stopped at the other border controls into UK) that starts to add up quickly.

Leroy42

Nody wrote: »

Well they would be sued to the WTO court and be handed down financial fines to be paid to compensate for it. If they ignore that they would be kicked out of the WTO and since every other country in the world can sue them (inc. EU countries if their goods are stopped at the other border controls into UK) that starts to add up quickly.

And how would they plan to do deals with other countries when they are basically saying that rules need not apply and they will ignore whatever the agreement says if they feel like it.

The UK seem to think they can simply dump all over the EU and then be welcomed with open arms by the rest of the world.