Brexit discussion thread III

Panrich

The gloves are coming off now. Hammonds speech is upping the ante.

London will not be automatic rule taker
The EU cannot pick and choose access to UK financial service market
If London loses out, the winners will be NY, Hong Kong, Singapore, not Paris, Frankfurt and Dublin.
EU will lose access to global financial markets.

steddyeddy

I particularly like what Tusk said here:

“I fully understand and respect Theresa May’s political objective: to demonstrate, at any price, that Brexit could be a success and is the right choice. But sorry, it is not our objective.”

Lord Glentoran

Panrich wrote: »

The gloves are coming off now. Hammonds speech is upping the ante.

London will not be automatic rule taker
The EU cannot pick and choose access to UK financial service market
If London loses out, the winners will be NY, Hong Kong, Singapore, not Paris, Frankfurt and Dublin.
EU will lose access to global financial markets.

So No Glove, No Love from Hammond then.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

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)

If they are not in CU, there will be border administration. I think we are agreed on that.

As I type, Hammond is speaking at Canary Wharf and playing the old "mutual recognition" card for Financial Services. Predictable and he'll get his answer soon.

Leroy42

Panrich wrote: »

The gloves are coming off now. Hammonds speech is upping the ante.

London will not be automatic rule taker
The EU cannot pick and choose access to UK financial service market
If London loses out, the winners will be NY, Hong Kong, Singapore, not Paris, Frankfurt and Dublin.
EU will lose access to global financial markets.

So he is saying that London and the UK are prepared to see the collapse of the CoL and the basis that it will hurt the EU as well?

There is no reason why the EU will lose out to international markets, they will simply move to Frankfurt etc to get access to EU. The international markets are not just going to stop dealing with the EU.

Its farcical stuff. Do they not see that following that logic that CoL would suffer massive reduction in business? Maybe they have accepted that no matter what that is going to happen and so want to take the EU with them on the way down, I cannot see any other logic to the 'threat'.

Water John

One might want to, keep in mind, as to what is Philip Hammond's end game?
Is he deliberately, upping the ante, knowing the response from the Col and the EU?

Enzokk

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

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



Nate

Seems to me, as with the discussion regarding the UK opting to be members of certain EU agencies, the UK is assuming that there will be a FTA done with the EU. It is the only thing that really makes sense as I am sure that not all ministers are so dim to assume that no borders are needed. They must think that the UK will have a deal and this will mean no borders and this will also mean they can participate in EU agencies after Brexit. That way if there is a border then it will be a EU border.

Then again they may not be thinking that far ahead, nothing so far has shown them to be that forward thinking, so now I am back to thinking they are all a little slow.

Panrich wrote: »

The gloves are coming off now. Hammonds speech is upping the ante.

London will not be automatic rule taker
The EU cannot pick and choose access to UK financial service market
If London loses out, the winners will be NY, Hong Kong, Singapore, not Paris, Frankfurt and Dublin.
EU will lose access to global financial markets.

That is some empty threat. The EU doesn't have the services right now, but they will not get it if you don't allow us to have our cake and eat it as another city will get it, so give it to us?

When the supposed calm and rational ministers start spouting crap then we are truly headed for disaster. I am starting to think that Brexit will be reversed at the last minute. The fallout domestically will not even compare to the damage Brexit will bring. I think Theresa May will redeem herself by reversing course and resigning to allow for a new election. Then it will be up to the parties to fight it out on what they want to propose. It will allow UKIP to become relevant again, but I think it will not matter as Labour will have a big majority in any case.

CelticRambler

Panrich wrote: »

The gloves are coming off now. Hammonds speech is upping the ante.

London will not be automatic rule taker
The EU cannot pick and choose access to UK financial service market
If London loses out, the winners will be NY, Hong Kong, Singapore, not Paris, Frankfurt and Dublin.
EU will lose access to global financial markets.

I've only read the printed word, but Hammond sounds like a five-year-old having a strop! :pac:

"it’s “hard to see how any deal without services could look like a fair and balanced” settlement." Well, Donald Tusk dealt with that this morning, saying (word to the effect of) "that's your problem, not ours"

If London loses out ... Shouldn't that be when London loses out, since TM acknowledged on Friday that it was inevitable?

And how does he think that the EU will lose access to global financial markets if (there's that if again) London's business moves to New York, Singapore and Hong Kong (aswell as keeping footholds in Dublin, Paris and Frankfurt)?

Sounds like a perfect win-win for the EU on financial services: the EU's money market comes under one, fully-committed, EU regulator, and the demise of London levels the playing field all 'round.

Havockk

CelticRambler wrote: »

I've only read the printed word, but Hammond sounds like a five-year-old having a strop! :pac:

"it’s “hard to see how any deal without services could look like a fair and balanced” settlement." Well, Donald Tusk dealt with that this morning, saying (word to the effect of) "that's your problem, not ours"

If London loses out ... Shouldn't that be when London loses out, since TM acknowledged on Friday that it was inevitable?

And how does he think that the EU will lose access to global financial markets if (there's that if again) London's business moves to New York, Singapore and Hong Kong (aswell as keeping footholds in Dublin, Paris and Frankfurt)?

Sounds like a perfect win-win for the EU on financial services: the EU's money market comes under one, fully-committed, EU regulator, and the demise of London levels the playing field all 'round.

I fully expect that in a year or 2, there will be mass civil unrest in the UK. Things just have that perfect storm brewing kind of feel.

Water John

That might not be national, but a civil society movement could well bring London to a halt. London is against Brexit and the reality of peoples jobs threatened, along with the down grading of the city, could be the recipie for for strike action.
I wonder does PH know exactly where he is going with the hard line but the Brexteers can say SFA to him?

Havockk

Water John wrote: »

That might not be national, but a civil society movement could well bring London to a halt. London is against Brexit and the reality of peoples jobs threatened, along with the down grading of the city, could be the recipie for for strike action.
I wonder does PH know exactly where he is going with the hard line but the Brexteers can say SFA to him?

The really odd thing about Hammonds speech, I've just checked the BBC site and there is no mention of it anywhere. Not only that I had to scroll down the page to get to the first mention of any brexit news - Tusk's comments earlier.

Water John

Will be interesting to see if the UK papers carry it.

flutered

Havockk wrote: »

I fully expect that in a year or 2, there will be mass civil unrest in the UK. Things just have that perfect storm brewing kind of feel.

should the car industary suffer, that should trigger something off, as it is one the uk's largest employers

Havockk

flutered wrote: »

should the car industary suffer, that should trigger something off, as it is one the uk's largest employers

Vauxhall head warned yesterday that Ellesmere Port was now at risk.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43300201

Sam Russell

flutered wrote: »

should the car industary suffer, that should trigger something off, as it is one the uk's largest employers

The car industry is certainly vulnerable because of the short JIT supply lines and the possibility of COO problems. Also, the UK car industry is foreign owned - would PSA lose any sleep at closing Elsemere Port assembly when they are over capacity all over Europe. Nissan have already been trying for a sweetheart deal and the Japanese Ambassador has made comments that would indicate a negative approach.

The City of London is also in a vulnerable position. There is plenty of other centres that can take business from them.

Leroy42

The UK car industry is somewhat protected due to the size of the UK market and the different driving side to the rest of the continent.

So I don't see wholescale wipeout of the industry, more that they will lose out on business.

Havockk

Leroy42 wrote: »

The UK car industry is somewhat protected due to the size of the UK market and the different driving side to the rest of the continent.

So I don't see wholescale wipeout of the industry, more that they will lose out on business.

Surely it becomes a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy at some point though? Economy slumps > Less car sales.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

The UK car industry is somewhat protected due to the size of the UK market and the different driving side to the rest of the continent.

So I don't see wholescale wipeout of the industry, more that they will lose out on business.

All Astras are made at Ellesmere Port.

In general, LHD and RHD cars are made on the same production line.

I would see Nissan making Renault cars for the UK market besides their own. It depends on tariffs and supply lines. Also, badge engineering might become a feature of UK models where the same car is offered with different badges but is (more or less) identical under the skin - only trim levels being different.

I think those that buy premium German cars will still do so - they can afford whatever tariff that is imposed, and besides, the old car will have a higher residual when they come to get their new one, so the cost will not be as noticeable.

If there is a recession, then car sales will be hit anyway.

Capt'n Midnight

flutered wrote: »

should the car industary suffer, that should trigger something off, as it is one the uk's largest employers

No they'll be grand.



EU-US-China starting trade wars over steel

US talking about import tariffs / EU defaulting to WTO if no deal - in total 60% of your export market is getting hostile. And you export 80% of your production.

All the main car companies have sounded off, and non are pro-brexit and many are lining up to wring out concessions from the govt, while at the same time holding off on re-investment

WTO rules on how much foreign components are allowed before things get really messy

Just In Time economics Vs. port delays


Turkey is in the CU and makes about as many cars as the UK
Thanks to a new trade deal Japan will be able to import cars directly into the EU which is another reason why having a plant in the UK won't be the advantage it used to be.

Leonard Hofstadter

Sam Russell wrote: »

All Astras are made at Ellesmere Port.

In general, LHD and RHD cars are made on the same production line.

I would see Nissan making Renault cars for the UK market besides their own. It depends on tariffs and supply lines. Also, badge engineering might become a feature of UK models where the same car is offered with different badges but is (more or less) identical under the skin - only trim levels being different.

I think those that buy premium German cars will still do so - they can afford whatever tariff that is imposed, and besides, the old car will have a higher residual when they come to get their new one, so the cost will not be as noticeable.

If there is a recession, then car sales will be hit anyway.

PSA previously indicated they might do something similar in the event of a 'no-deal' scenario, build all RHD Opels/Vauxhalls, Citroens and Peugeots in Ellesmere Port (and use UK based suppliers) and use their European sites to build LHD cars.

Anyway, Toyota have decided that the new generation Auris will continue to be built in the UK, so either Toyota is very foolish or else they believe the UK will cave into some EU demand in order to keep no tariffs for the car industry.

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

The UK car industry is somewhat protected due to the size of the UK market and the different driving side to the rest of the continent.

80% of production is exported, mostly generic cars that are very price sensitive.

A lot of the imports are premium brands, which aren't as price sensitive.


Thanks to EU rules car manufacturers and dealers must offer both LHD and RHD so that's pretty much a non-issue.

Havockk wrote: »

Surely it becomes a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy at some point though? Economy slumps > Less car sales.

Thanks to the fall in Sterling and the scrappage deals profit margins have tanked. It's been like that since Article 50 and it's not getting better.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/100832/uk-car-scrappage-schemes-2018-round-up-all-the-latest-deals

Biggest savings for scrappage schemes by body style

• City car: Volkswagen e-up! – £3300
• Supermini: DS 3 – £3,500
• Family hatch: DS 5 – £5,500
• Coupe: Volkswagen Scirocco – £5,000
• Convertible: Audi A5 cabriolet – ££6,000
• Saloon: Audi A6 – £7,000
• Estate: Volkswagen Passat Estate - £5,000
• MPV: Citroen C3 Picasso - £6,400
• Crossover: Audi Q3 – £4,000
• SUV: Audi Q7 e-tron – £8,000
• Small panel van: Peugeot Partner – £5,000 + VAT
• Medium panel van: Peugeot Expert and Citroen Dispatch – £5,500 + VAT
• Large panel van: Peugeot Boxer and Citroen Relay – £7,000 + VAT

Biggest savings on electric cars via scrappage scheme:

• All-electric: Volkswagen e-Golf – £5,500
• Hybrid: Toyota Auris and RAV4 – £3,500
• Plug-in hybrid: Audi Q7 e-tron – £8,000

Thargor

The Tories won the vote tonight to cover up who funnelled all that money into the DUP to pay for their pro-Brexit propaganda in the runup to the referendum, who in their right mind would think its a good idea for that to be kept secret? The media should be screaming blue murder about it but I doubt we'll even see a Tory politician being asked about it on the BBC.

Capt'n Midnight

Thargor wrote: »

The Tories won the vote tonight to cover up who funnelled all that money into the DUP to pay for their pro-Brexit propaganda in the runup to the referendum, who in their right mind would think its a good idea for that to be kept secret? The media should be screaming blue murder about it but I doubt we'll even see a Tory politician being asked about it on the BBC.

LOL

only 2% of it has been delivered with another 3% ringfenced for this year


D'ya see Stormount ain't running right now.

Water John

Are ye talking of two diff monies? The Ref funds given to the DUP and the £1bn promised for the DUP Westminister Govn't support.

flutered

captainspeed wrote: »

PSA previously indicated they might do something similar in the event of a 'no-deal' scenario, build all RHD Opels/Vauxhalls, Citroens and Peugeots in Ellesmere Port (and use UK based suppliers) and use their European sites to build LHD cars.

Anyway, Toyota have decided that the new generation Auris will continue to be built in the UK, so either Toyota is very foolish or else they believe the UK will cave into some EU demand in order to keep no tariffs for the car industry.

toyota has said they are awaiting a post brexit clarification as regards costs before the fully commit

UsedToWait

What was the Stephen Nolan piece referred to earlier?

I was hoping there might be an emerging sense of realism among some unionists who aren't so intransigent as to burn their own house down on point of principle..

Thargor

Water John wrote: »

Are ye talking of two diff monies? The Ref funds given to the DUP and the £1bn promised for the DUP Westminister Govn't support.

Yeah Im talking about the anonymous donations that had the DUP placing giant 2 page Brexit propaganda pieces in papers that arent even sold in Ulster. It was funnelled to the DUP because payments like that are illegal in Scotland/England/Wales.

Theresa Mays 1 billion bung was a different issue.

Peregrinus

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

No, a trade deal on its own is unlikely to do the trick.

At the moment we have an open border because of two things:

1. The customs union means that there are no tariffs to be collected on produce of one country imported to the other, or (just as important) on produce of a third country, imported into one country and then moved to the other. So, no tariffs to be collected at all; no need for a customs border.

2. The single market means that goods which can lawfully be imported into and/or sold in one country can be lawfully imported and/or sold in the other. So no need to check goods for compliance with local rules regarding safety, packaging, labelling, licensing, etc, etc, etc; no need for a regulatory border.

Note that Turkey is in the Customs Union, but there's still a hard border between Turkey and Greece/Bulgaria because it's not in the Single Market. Conversely, Norway and Sweden are both in the Single Market but there is a hard border between them because Norway is not in the Customs Union. So these examples show that for a truly open border you need both.

HMG has ruled out both the CU and the SM. So as regards keeping the order open, we have a double problem.

If there's a free trade deal, such that there's no tariffs on UK goods imported into Ireland and vice versa, that only solves half of one problem. Customs-wise, you'd still need a border to collect tariffs on third country goods imported into Ireland via the UK, or vice versa. And, regulation-wise, you'd need a border to enforce all your regulatory, packaging, consumer safety, etc, standards.

UK Labour Party policy is to remain in the Customs Union. This would solve the whole of one problem, but the question of differing regulatory standards would still arise, and would still require a border. For an open border you'd also need some kind of a deal under which the UK accepted EU regulatory standards either for the whole UK or for NI (which is the agreed fallback under the Phase 1 Report, but now the UK is not so keen) or if the EU and the UK agree to mutual recognition of their (diverging) standards, which the UK advocates but the EU does not favour.

Really Interested

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, a trade deal on its own is unlikely to do the trick.

At the moment we have an open border because of two things:

1. The customs union means that there are no tariffs to be collected on produce of one country imported to the other, or (just as important) on produce of a third country, imported into one country and then moved to the other. So, no tariffs to be collected at all; no need for a customs border.

2. The single market means that goods which can lawfully be imported into and/or sold in one country can be lawfully imported and/or sold in the other. So no need to check goods for compliance with local rules regarding safety, packaging, labelling, licensing, etc, etc, etc; no need for a regulatory border.

Note that Turkey is in the Customs Union, but there's still a hard border between Turkey and Greece/Bulgaria because it's not in the Single Market. Conversely, Norway and Sweden are both in the Single Market but there is a hard border between them because Norway is not in the Customs Union. So these examples show that for a truly open border you need both.

HMG has ruled out both the CU and the SM. So as regards keeping the order open, we have a double problem.

If there's a free trade deal, such that there's no tariffs on UK goods imported into Ireland and vice versa, that only solves half of one problem. Customs-wise, you'd still need a border to collect tariffs on third country goods imported into Ireland via the UK, or vice versa. And, regulation-wise, you'd need a border to enforce all your regulatory, packaging, consumer safety, etc, standards.

UK Labour Party policy is to remain in the Customs Union. This would solve the whole of one problem, but the question of differing regulatory standards would still arise, and would still require a border. For an open border you'd also need some kind of a deal under which the UK accepted EU regulatory standards either for the whole UK or for NI (which is the agreed fallback under the Phase 1 Report, but now the UK is not so keen) or if the EU and the UK agree to mutual recognition of their (diverging) standards, which the UK advocates but the EU does not favour.

Just to clarify Turkey is in a customs union with the EU not in the customs union for example agriculture is not covered by the agreement between EU and Turkey, the difference between “a” and “the” is really important.

Peregrinus

Really Interested wrote: »

Just to clarify Turkey is in a customs union with the EU not in the customs union for example agriculture is not covered by the agreement between EU and Turkey, the difference between “a” and “the” is really important.

I realise that. But in this particular context the distinction is really not important. Even if Turkey were in the EU Customs Union as, e.g., Monaco is, but were not in the Single Market, the border implications would be just as I have described.

Plus, it's worth pointing out that if the UK does change its policy here, I'm pretty sure that the new policy will be to be in a customs union with the EU, like Turkey. The customs union is the "European Union Customs Union"; to be in that you pretty much need to be an EU member state, or in some dependent relationship with an EU member state.

Igotadose

Peregrinus wrote: »

I realise that. But in this particular context the distinction is really not important. Even if Turkey were in the EU Customs Union as, e.g., Monaco is, but were not in the Single Market, the border implications would be just as I have described.

Plus, it's worth pointing out that if the UK does change its policy here, I'm pretty sure that the new policy will be to be in a customs union with the EU, like Turkey. The customs union is the "European Union Customs Union"; to be in that you pretty much need to be an EU member state, or in some dependent relationship with an EU member state.

If the UK is to be in a customs union with the EU, which implies no tariffs will need to be collected on goods traveling between the EU and the UK how will disputes be settled? For example, if UK corn, is cheaper than French corn, French corn growers will object. Is there a tariff court they go to for dispute resolution?

Leroy42

Maybe it is just me, but I notice a change in the reporting of Brexit from the likes of Express etc. Its subtle, they still are running with the whole "Evil EU is out to get us" in many of them and classing any line against the EU as a "blast against EU" or "making a mockery of the EU position" but there is starting to be little signs that they are letting the public know what is coming.

They are starting to cover things like mobile roaming charges and flights etc. Of course they are still dressed up as the UK standing firm against the punishment by the EU for the UK having the cheek to take democracy seriously, but my reading of it is that they are softening up the public. By letting these little bits out they can claim that the British public knew and still want to go ahead.

My reading of it is that this will be ramped up over the coming few months, gradually as to be almost imperceptible. Or, as I said, maybe its just me!

Peregrinus

Igotadose wrote: »

If the UK is to be in a customs union with the EU, which implies no tariffs will need to be collected on goods traveling between the EU and the UK how will disputes be settled? For example, if UK corn, is cheaper than French corn, French corn growers will object. Is there a tariff court they go to for dispute resolution?

UK corn being cheaper than French corn may upset French farmers, but it doesn’t provide any basis for a legal challenge, and it doesn’t create any issues under the rules of a customs union.

The kind of dispute that might arise under a customs union would be, e.g, that the UK is wrongly applying the “car components” tariff to computers imported from Japan to be installed in cars manufactured in the UK, whereas the EU might consider that they are properly subject to the “computer equipment” tariff. (This is just an invented example; I have no idea whether the EU customs tariff has separate classes for "car components" and "computer equipment".) Assuming that the customs union agreement says that both the UK and the EU will apply the Common External Tariff, since the CET is a creature of EU law the authoritative interpreter of the tariff would be the ECJ.

Of course, it's possible than when negotiating the customs union agreement the UK could try to put in a dispute resolution clause providing for joint arbitration, or something of the kind, but I can't see the EU agreeing. The whole point of a customs union is that the states involved apply a common tariff, and if the EU-27 are all applying the CET as interpreted by the ECJ, that's what the UK is going to have to apply too.

BonnieSituation

UsedToWait wrote: »

What was the Stephen Nolan piece referred to earlier?

I was hoping there might be an emerging sense of realism among some unionists who aren't so intransigent as to burn their own house down on point of principle..

Anybody?

demfad

'Confidential' Whitehall Impact report published:

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Exiting-the-European-Union/17-19/Cross-Whitehall-briefing/EU-Exit-Analysis-Cross-Whitehall-Briefing.pdf

CelticRambler

Westminster's latest Brexit impact analysis - same as all the others: a drag on the economy for the next 15 years no matter what deal is agreed with the EU, and any positive effect is based on getting a good trade deal with the US (and maybe others).

At least this document bluntly states that the biggest headaches for UK businesses operating in the future are the non-tariff barriers "at and behind the border" (slide 5, page 6). Rather ironic that the price of "taking back control" is to give total control to Brussels, and then having to comply with EU rules.

Edit: demfad got there first! :pac:

Panrich

demfad wrote: »

'Confidential' Whitehall Impact report published:

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Exiting-the-European-Union/17-19/Cross-Whitehall-briefing/EU-Exit-Analysis-Cross-Whitehall-Briefing.pdf

It's presented like a transition year student project. If the quality of the underlying analysis matches the presentation, then the UK are in worse shape than they think.

Sam Russell

demfad wrote: »

'Confidential' Whitehall Impact report published:

https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Exiting-the-European-Union/17-19/Cross-Whitehall-briefing/EU-Exit-Analysis-Cross-Whitehall-Briefing.pdf

Nothing good to be seen here, move on please.

Every aspect is negative - a good USA deal gives a 0.1% to 0.3% rise to GDP - would they notice?

Is it worth it? A question never answered.

Peregrinus

Panrich wrote: »

It's presented like a transition year student project.

It needs to look like that if there is to be any chance that Liam Fox will grasp what it is saying. It's all about the bullet points, people!

J Mysterio

What this report should be telling then is 'WE ARE MAKING A TERRIBLE MISTAKE!"

Still though, I guess they love their version of 'freedom' so much, they are happy to destroy the UK for a generation of people.

Leroy42

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Anybody?

Haven't heard the show, so this is from reports, but I gather that this insider was basically saying that a deal on power sharing was agreed before Arlene pulled the plug.

This backs up the SF position and that the DUP is playing politics with NI.

demfad

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/03/06/no-matter-what-gove-says-brexit-will-deal-a-hammer-blow-to-a

Good article on the annihilation of British Agriculture under WTO rules. Below excerpt focusing on Ireland/n.Ireland but worth reading all.

Between them, dairy farmers in Northern Ireland ship 800 million litres of milk a year directly from their farms to processors across the border to the south, where a lot of it is packed for supermarket milk. This is roughly equivalent to 70 thirty-tonne tanker loads every day. For now, tankers can use any border crossing that fits in with their collection run. There are no checks. The tariff is zero.

David Davis' insistence that the UK can invent some new invisible digital border is pie-in-the-sky nonsense, but let's suppose for a moment that it works. We still have the problem of WTO Schedule 80 tariffs. For third country milk of this kind, the price will be 227 euros per tonne. Every tanker load would clock up more than 6,500 euros in customs duty. The rest, as they say, is mathematics. Overnight, the livelihoods of hundreds of Northern Irish dairy farmers would be dead in the water.

But in reality this will not be the only effect. The invisible digital border will not materialise, so there will be delays at the border. The delays will pose huge risks to commercial interests and perishable goods.

Checking paperwork is only one aspect of customs clearance. It is standard practice for specialist veterinary surgeons to certify livestock or animal products, such as meat, dairy or fish, as well as foodstuffs containing animal products, for compliance to European standards. Third country food entering the EU faces a range of food safety checks.

The UK's Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) has just over 1,000 such specialist vets. The British Veterinary Association warned MPs on the environment committee that many more would need to be recruited to cover post-Brexit requirements, while the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons drew attention to the fact that the UK depends heavily on non-UK vets. Ninety-five per cent of the vets in meat hygiene in the UK are from overseas.


Regardless of what levels of checking the UK chooses to carry out on imports, European standards have been crystal clear for years and are unlikely to change anytime soon. The first rule is that all third country food or livestock imports must pass through a designated Border Inspection Post on arrival in the EU, where registered laboratory facilities exist for veterinary or food safety checks.

Setting aside the three border posts that carry out veterinary checks on passengers’ pets at Belfast International, Shannon and Dublin airports, the only other posts on the island of Ireland are on the docks at Dublin and Belfast. The Irish border, under the 1998 Belfast Agreement, cannot accommodate a single post.

Leroy42

Reading that report, one thing that stands out is that they address the changes in the modelling pre-ref and now. They are saying that now they have a new state of the art model which is far better.

Many brexiteers came out to rubbish any reports based on the line "they got it wrong before the ref" but this clearly shows that they they have taken that on board. Yet no mention was ever made of that, allowing the perception that the reports were equal in their reliability.

Since many of the points on these slides are now become talking points of May etc, it is clear that this was seen by the cabinet, yet they allowed that line to be trotted out.

Putting aside the rights and wrong of brexit, that is very serious territory that serving government ministers allowed the people to make untrue claims about the workings of HMG.

Going further into it Section 9 shows the assumptions of the effect of the three scenarios on the different sectors of non tariff barriers (my understanding is that even without any tariffs costs would be incurred). Retail is 20% under WTO, 7.5% under EEA-Type. Financial services is 10%, Agriculture something like 17%. That is simply staggering.

Turning to actual tariffs, under a FTA (what Tusk said is not only option, except for WTO) agri would likely be hit with a further 26% tariffs and beverages, tobacco and food 12.7%.

They state that trade deals covering USA,Australia, India, New Zealand and China may add .7% to GDP.

How any minister could have seen this and thought of anything but stopping Brexit is beyond me. For May to come out and almost brazenly say that there would be some readjustments required, knowing all of this is almost incredible.

They were shown this back in January, before Chequers, before the series of speeches, and yet still plough ahead?

trellheim

David Davis' insistence that the UK can invent some new invisible digital border is pie-in-the-sky nonsense, but let's suppose for a moment that it works.

Ignore the politics briefly

With no transition :

It is utterly implausible to have any kind of working system before March 2019 from an IT perspective that is not akin to manual inspection.

Even with a transition ( end Dec 2020 ) its almost impossible to see it being put in place without absolutely giant IT investment and a huge sensor fleet - and I'd remind people, it needs to be done twice, once for our side, once for the UK side. Make no mistake the EU will force us to do it at the very least.

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

Turning to actual tariffs, under a FTA (what Tusk said is not only option, except for WTO) agri would likely be hit with a further 26% tariffs and beverages, tobacco and food 12.7%.

First thing I thought of there is this could well be amazing for all the Irish Gin producers considering the UK is the biggest exporter of Gin in the world

trellheim

tusk''s speech yesterday

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/03/07/statement-by-president-donald-tusk-on-the-draft-guidelines-on-the-framework-for-the-future-relationship-with-the-uk/pdf


Apologies if posted already.

LeinsterDub

trellheim wrote: »

Ignore the politics briefly

With no transition :

It is utterly implausible to have any kind of working system before March 2019 from an IT perspective that is not akin to manual inspection.

Even with a transition ( end Dec 2020 ) its almost impossible to see it being put in place without absolutely giant IT investment and a huge sensor fleet - and I'd remind people, it needs to be done twice, once for our side, once for the UK side. Make no mistake the EU will force us to do it at the very least.

As someone already said here the UK has attempted twice to implement a much simpler system with a much smaller scope twice in the last 15 years and failed.

flatty

The Times has definitely significantly changed its tone for now at least. Two page long opinion pieces this week (at least, I've only seen it twice) vehemently laying out the position for another referendum.

Infini

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-talks-irish-border-tusk-varadkar-northern-ireland-uk-solution-dup-a8246216.html

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/mar/08/brexit-rudd-says-uk-keeping-cool-head-as-it-plans-response-to-nerve-agent-attack-on-russian-spy-politics-live?page=with:block-5aa15bc5e4b0039bd7e565ba#block-5aa15bc5e4b0039bd7e565ba

EU throws down the gauntlet. "Ireland comes first". Border Issue must be solved before anything else or nothing moves till it is.

trellheim

Tusk - twitter 30 mins ago the big dogs are in the yard now ...

https://twitter.com/eucopresident

Donald Tusk
‏
Verified account

@eucopresident


More
If in London someone assumes that the #Brexit negotiations will deal with other issues first, before moving to the Irish issue, my response would be: Ireland first.

Life will be different after #Brexit, also for financial services.
I fully respect UK Chancellor’s competence in defining UK’s interest. I would ask to allow us define what’s in EU’s interest.