Brexit discussion thread III

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote: »

I am. It was discussed earlier.

So he didn't lie about sector assessments of Brexit? You sure about that?

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

The reality of the agreement is still that if another solution cannot be agreed in the meantime, the UK will align regulation so far as is necessary to support the whole island elements of the GFA. That could well amount, notwithstanding the wording, to regulatory alignment in NI alone - and that regulatory alignment could take the form of mutual recognition.

The agreement and the dance which led to it has allowed everyone (even May, to some extent) to walk away from the table with their heads held high and that is the definition of a good agreement. It doesn't really help to crow about these things either before or after the event, but that won't stop politicians on every side (including Brussels) doing so.

But if the EU has already got agreement that the worst case scenario for Brexit is that the UK will operate regulatory alignment across the whole of the UK and maintain no border then what has the Uk got to deal with?

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Their intent was always unknown. Nobody who voted Leave knew what it was they were voting for. 18 months later, they still don't know what it was they voted for.

But they still voted Leave though and, as we constantly get told the will of the people must be both respected and implemented even if they have no idea what they want. That's the problem with democracy, you get out what you put in.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But they still voted Leave though and, as we constantly get told the will of the people must be both respected and implemented even if they have no idea what they want. That's the problem with democracy, you get out what you put in.

Plus if you choose to inform yourself via The Sun, Mail, Express and Telegraph, then you can't be surprised if you find that you have been conditioned. And that you voted accordingly.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Plus if you choose to inform yourself via The Sun, Mail, Express and Telegraph, then you can't be surprised if you find that you have been conditioned. And that you voted accordingly.

This would constitute only part of the Leave puzzle IMO. The main thing I thought won the referendum for Leave was that most people are just about managing financially. Over the decades, the UK electorate have consistently through their FPTP system voted for governments which have eschewed state intervention in favour of some form of free market ideology meaning that places which are struggling (think North Wales, Scotland, Northern England, etc) got very little investment from the state or the market. Living standards deteriorated, rents soared, especially in the south-east where I currently live so people voted for change. This wouldn't have happened in the nineties. Whether or not the Eastern states should have been allowed to accede to the Union is debatable but the fact is that governments of all major parties have shown at best limited interest in protecting the lower classes from the negatives, and there most certainly are negatives of globalisation.

recedite

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if the EU has already got agreement that the worst case scenario for Brexit is that the UK will operate regulatory alignment across the whole of the UK and maintain no border then what has the Uk got to deal with?

That commitment will be in the Withdrawal Agreement to be signed later. Which will also specify the amount the UK must pay on leaving.
But if no deal happens on trade in Phase 2, then its unlikely this Withdrawal Agreement will ever be signed by the UK.

FreudianSlippers

recedite wrote: »

Your post is typical of the disconnect between the bureaucratic way of solving problems on paper, and what happens in real life.

Ok?

It is simply not true that an EU citizen needs 2 years worth of money before moving to another member state.

That may be your opinion, but it is not grounded in fact or reality.

Again, I can't recall exactly what the "qualifying period" is, but it is my recollection that, at least Ireland, has a 2 year qualifying period for individuals moving here on a long-term basis who do not have a job - i.e. enough money that they wouldn't be on social welfare and health insurance.

In the event of (c) above...
How is the Romanian social welfare going to be enough to pay for food and accommodation in central London?

Irrelevant.

What is the official rate of Romanian social welfare for somebody who has never worked or paid tax anyway?

Irrelevant.

If the guy is not in receipt of any social welfare from his home state, will he be refused entry to the other MS?

After up to 6 months actively looking for a job, yes. Whether or not the individual is in receipt of social welfare is irrelevant.

If the guy is found living under a bridge a week later, can he be deported or would the authorities have to wait 6 months before even starting the deportation procedure?

If that individual is found to be not genuinely seeking employment, yes.

How many years would that deportation procedure last, including appeals etc.?

Given you referred to the UK, they have had a very good track record of voluntary removals since 2004.

If a deportation order is granted in the UK, an individual residing in the UK has 10 days to appeal (if they are outside of the UK they have 28 days), following which the appeal is usually heard within 6 months if the appeal is on a human rights / asylum, or 12-18 months for an entry clearance of EEA appeal.

Would the UK allow this guy and his family to starve to death in the meantime, if he refused to leave?

I'm not sure what they do. If an individual is unlawfully in the UK and refusing to comply with a deportation order which they have appealed without reason then I believe they should not afford that individual welfare payments.

There are some fundamental truths which Brussels has been ignoring over the last few years. If you allow people to freely move from a country that has low standards to a country that has high standards, then the pressure on the host country will be such that welfare and other standards cannot be maintained at their previous level.

If they had accepted these home truths, then we would not be seeing the serious cracks in the EU that have now appeared between east and west, and between the UK and the continent.

If one accepts that there is such a thing as "allow[ing] people to freely move" as being "Free Movement of Persons" as opposed to "Free Movement of Workers" pursuant to Article 45, then you may have a valid point; however, if you were factually correct in terms of what Article 45 states (i.e. Free Movement of Workers) then you would be incorrect.

recedite

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Irrelevant.

The cost of living is quite relevant in the real world though.

Your link on deportations shows a minority were from the EU (Romania and Poland) but of these, it does not say what proportion were deported for being "offenders" and what proportion were simply found living in poverty.

"Free Movement of Workers" would include people "looking for work" for up to 6 months (I think) and their families.

If they don't find work during that time, but are still legally entitled to be resident, a civilised country will provide a basic level of food and housing for them, even if not strictly required to do so by EU treaties.

If they become willing to take up work for lower wages than the native population, then the natives who are unemployed are going to feel aggrieved.

I stand by my earlier assertion that any public policy that encourages the large scale movement of people and/or industry from one country to another is the wrong policy.

steddyeddy

I'm just wondering how the recent EU-Japanese trade deal will affect the Japanese car market in the UK. Surely this will mean those industries will accept even less market disruption now. Secondly I wonder how many people knew about this Japan-EU trade deal? These things can take years to organise and I'm wondering if anyone on the leave side knew about this but choose to keep quiet.

steddyeddy

recedite wrote: »

The cost of living is quite relevant in the real world though.

Your link on deportations shows a minority were from the EU (Romania and Poland) but of these, it does not say what proportion were deported for being "offenders" and what proportion were simply found living in poverty.

"Free Movement of Workers" would include people "looking for work" for up to 6 months (I think) and their families.

If they don't find work during that time, but are still legally entitled to be resident, a civilised country will provide a basic level of food and housing for them, even if not strictly required to do so by EU treaties.

If they become willing to take up work for lower wages than the native population, then the natives who are unemployed are going to feel aggrieved.

I stand by my earlier assertion that any public policy that encourages the large scale movement of people and/or industry from one country to another is the wrong policy.

A lot of industry and state bodies such as the NHS require the movement of people to ensure the skill quotas are filled.

recedite

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm just wondering how the recent EU-Japanese trade deal will affect the Japanese car market in the UK. Surely this will mean those industries will accept even less market disruption now. Secondly I wonder how many people knew about this Japan-EU trade deal? These things can take years to organise and I'm wondering if anyone on the leave side knew about this but choose to keep quiet.

It was well flagged, and there were supposed to be secret deals done.

Any disruption would only happen if the Japanese ended up with free trade in cars, but the UK did not.
Its all part of this crazy idea that the UK must be punished if it refuses to be obedient to all of Brussel's demands. But for the rest of the world, free trade is a great idea.
How many Romanians have the Japanese taken in?

Christy42

recedite wrote: »

It was well flagged, and there were supposed to be secret deals done.

Any disruption would only happen if the Japanese ended up with free trade in cars, but the UK did not.
Its all part of this crazy idea that the UK must be punished if it refuses to be obedient to all of Brussel's demands. But for the rest of the world, free trade is a great idea.
How many Romanians have the Japanese taken in?

Does the UK have much to offer for the free trade deal? I do not think so. I really don't see not giving the UK a good deal as a punishment. I see it as not giving them a handout.

Btw a free trade deal on a single section is not the same as being in the customs union. It is entirely possible the UK will manage to avoid the four freedoms but get free trade on some goods.

steddyeddy

recedite wrote: »

It was well flagged, and there were supposed to be secret deals done.

Any disruption would only happen if the Japanese ended up with free trade in cars, but the UK did not.
Its all part of this crazy idea that the UK must be punished if it refuses to be obedient to all of Brussel's demands. But for the rest of the world, free trade is a great idea.
How many Romanians have the Japanese taken in?

I'm talking about the creation of a huge new trading zone and deal which was agreed between the EU and Japan. Not the Nissan-Tory deal.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/12/09/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-eu-reach-final-accord-trade-pact-eye-implementation-early-2019/

kowtow

Christy42 wrote: »

Does the UK have much to offer for the free trade deal? I do not think so. I really don't see not giving the UK a good deal as a punishment. I see it as not giving them a handout.

Btw a free trade deal on a single section is not the same as being in the customs union. It is entirely possible the UK will manage to avoid the four freedoms but get free trade on some goods.

Does the UK not import more from the EU than it exports?

In which case what the UK has to offer in a trade deal is a market place, and generally speaking - all politics aside - I'm sure most EU businesses would want to continue selling into that market place without impediment.

That's not the same as saying that not having an FTA will hurt the UK more than the EU, which while possibly true is primarily a political rather than a commercial observation.

steddyeddy

kowtow wrote: »

Does the UK not import more from the EU than it exports?

In which case what the UK has to offer in a trade deal is a market place, and generally speaking - all politics aside - I'm sure most EU businesses would want to continue selling into that market place without impediment.

That's not the same as saying that not having an FTA will hurt the UK more than the EU, which while possibly true is primarily a political rather than a commercial observation.

And the UK is suddenly going to replace what it imports by internal production?

ancapailldorcha

Nonsense posts deleted.

Calina

kowtow wrote: »

Does the UK not import more from the EU than it exports?

In which case what the UK has to offer in a trade deal is a market place, and generally speaking - all politics aside - I'm sure most EU businesses would want to continue selling into that market place without impediment.

That's not the same as saying that not having an FTA will hurt the UK more than the EU, which while possibly true is primarily a political rather than a commercial observation.

The problem with that scenario - the provision of a market place - is at some point, they have to find some way of earning how to pay for the stuff they import. The trade deficit is not ultimately in their favour here.

Calina

recedite wrote: »

It was well flagged, and there were supposed to be secret deals done.

Any disruption would only happen if the Japanese ended up with free trade in cars, but the UK did not.
Its all part of this crazy idea that the UK must be punished if it refuses to be obedient to all of Brussel's demands. But for the rest of the world, free trade is a great idea.
How many Romanians have the Japanese taken in?

The Japanese trade deal was agreed in principle months ago, and discussed at some length in one of the Brexit threads particularly with reference to what Phil Hogan had to do to get the deal agreed in principle. It was an example of the kind of work that the UK does not appear to realise will be necessary; all the more so when you see assorted UK politicians talking about how quickly they will sign good trade deals.

The key point about the EU-Japan trade deal is that it is broadly irrelevant to the UK as current indications are that they will have left the EU by the time it works its way through ratification.

The secret deal you are referring to has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the EU-Japan trade deal. Whatever it is - and the details continue to be scant - it is apparently some comfort between the UK government and Nissan. The problem is if the EU is willing to take more cars directly from Japan via a FTA agreement, then the automotive industry in the UK is in serious trouble as the lack of low/mid price cars from UK under Japanese badges can be replaced by trade from Japan. Sure, the delivery is a little more expensive, but them is the breaks. In short, there's another item the EU doesn't per se need from the UK. The UK expects to be eating food from New Zealand, apparently.

I have some issues with the constant references by Brexit/UK supporting to punishment. The UK has made a decision. It is a stupid decision, but it is a decision nonetheless. Certain things happen as a result of that decision. That they are happening is not punishment; it is a fact of life. They need to get on with it and stop crying into their cornflakes.

With respect to Romanians and Japan, the FTA is not in effect yet and to my knowledge, it does not include much in the way of working visas exchanges. But I'd have to check. In general though the FTAs don't tend to feature free movement of labour much so really it'd be more interesting to see how many have wound up in Switzerland and Norway. Japan is irrelevant in this context. But you know that, I guess.

Christy42

kowtow wrote: »

Does the UK not import more from the EU than it exports?

In which case what the UK has to offer in a trade deal is a market place, and generally speaking - all politics aside - I'm sure most EU businesses would want to continue selling into that market place without impediment.

That's not the same as saying that not having an FTA will hurt the UK more than the EU, which while possibly true is primarily a political rather than a commercial observation.

It is about percentage imports. The EU has relatively few of its exports at risk as a percentage. The UK is risking a lot. Essentially any damage to the EU will be spread out while in the UK anywhere hit will be hit worse (there will just be less businesses hurt as there are less businesses in the UK to get hurt.

In addition the UK has a harder time replacing those imports that it wants. It will likely simply have to pay tariffs and still get them from the UK. EU businesses on the other hand can simply go to a competitor elsewhere in the EU.

Certainly EU businesses with a lot of dealings with the UK will see their bottom line suffer but thry have workarounds available and tend not to be too exposed percentage wise.

As to why percentages matter more than whole numbers. Imagine you were dealing with Bill Gates. If you stopped the deal you would lose 100k per year from your current earnings. Bill would lose 10 million from his own.

You both want the other to sacrifice more to let the deal go ahead. Bill loses more if it does not go ahead. Who has the edge in negotiations?

kowtow

kowtow wrote: »

As I have said before, this was always going to be a humpty dumpty deal. The words, to a large extent, mean whatever you choose them to mean. The statements of intent are very important, but it is diplomatic capital behind them rather than hard, legally enforceable, cash and commitment.

And for the moment that is a good thing, everybody can claim (for their domestic audiences) a win. Everybody can move on to the meat and drink of things in phase two, and eventually we will all begin to settle on a clearer picture of what can and can't be done - Brexit will take shape.

The UK was never going to put a hard border in place. The Irish & EU wanted sufficient written commitment to this not least because - if the UK wasn't going to put one there - there was always a risk that we would have to and that would never have played well. Under the present agreement, as I have always suggested, every suggestion originally made - more or less - in the UK white paper remains open as an option for the border. Electronic customs arrangements, combined with regulatory alignment, will allow Ireland and the UK to reach the mutually agreeable solutions which the present agreement envisages in the context of trade talks. When Adam Boulton refers to a "kerfuffle" this is essentially what he is talking about.

In Ireland and elsewhere commentators are writing that little Ireland has taught the UK a lesson and ensured that the UK will, to all intents and purposes, remain in the CU (and by the way did you know that Brexit was pointless and stupid?)

And David Davis is, a bit cackhandedly, pointing out that the agreement is not quite the binding commitment to a single specific route which those commentators are rejoicing at.

This apparent conflict is not the sign of a bad agreement falling apart, it's evidence of a good agreement paving the way for a better one.

I think I'll implode if I see this rubbish written any more.

If the UK don't operate border controls on their border with the EU whilst not in a specific customs arrangement, they have no ability to negotiate free trade with any other countries, namely because they will have unilaterally granted those FTAs to all WTO members and have zero leverage behind trying to get a bilateral offering.

The WTO MFN rules render this the case.

If the either the EU or the UK permits a 'wink wink nudge nudge' border in Ireland to exist, they must grant these conditions to any and all members of the WTO.

If the UK does leave the Single Market and Custom's Union, as Theresa May has made clear is her intention, there is currently no possible way to not have a hard border. None.

If there was, then other countries would be already doing it, as it's clearly cheaper to not require border infrastructure and staff than not.

Two questions that require consideration if you want to understand what the Single Market is.

When did Ireland 'lose' its hard border?
Why?

Now work it backwards.

kowtow

Deleted User wrote: »

I think I'll implode if I see this rubbish written any more.

If the UK don't operate border controls on their border with the EU whilst not in a specific customs arrangement, they have no ability to negotiate free trade with any other countries, namely because they will have unilaterally granted those FTAs to all WTO members and have zero leverage behind trying to get a bilateral offering.

A hard border does not mean that there are no customs controls, simply that they are not operated by heavy physical infrastructure at the border.

My definition of a "soft" border is as follows:

It should allow people that are currently able to move freely under the
CTA to continue to enjoy passport free travel across the border. In the case of goods, where importers and exporters are known to the authorities, any border formalities should be as limited as possible and controls undertaken away from the border

And I continue to believe that such a border is perfectly possible. In my opinion that is the type of border which the UK sought in it's original white paper and will also be the type of border they end up implementing.

Please stop dismissing the suggestion of this kind of border as "rubbish" - if it was rubbish then it wouldn't be under consideration.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

I think I'll implode if I see this rubbish written any more.

If the UK don't operate border controls on their border with the EU whilst not in a specific customs arrangement, they have no ability to negotiate free trade with any other countries, namely because they will have unilaterally granted those FTAs to all WTO members and have zero leverage behind trying to get a bilateral offering.

The WTO MFN rules render this the case.

If the either the EU or the UK permits a 'wink wink nudge nudge' border in Ireland to exist, they must grant these conditions to any and all members of the WTO.

If the UK does leave the Single Market and Custom's Union, as Theresa May has made clear is her intention, there is currently no possible way to not have a hard border. None.

If there was, then other countries would be already doing it, as it's clearly cheaper to not require border infrastructure and staff than not.

When you think that the Brexiteers never actually wanted to win the referendum in the first place, their bluster and flipflopping to date makes sense. In many ways they were hoisted by their own petards. The plan was to gain lots of publicity with jingoistic nonsense and craw-thumping. Lots of 'Defender of the Realm' headlines in the Tory press. It didn't matter than none of it made any sense from any perspective, immigration included, nor that the lies were plucked out of thin air a la the NHS bonanza, what mattered was those headlines. Then they won.

Now they must find a way of extricating themselves from the sorry mess that their selfish lies created. They know that there has to be a soft Brexit or they must have a hard border. They know they can't come out and say it. So they bluff and bluster and then capitulate. It's almost as if they and the EU have choreographed proceedings so that the Tories can be brought 'reluctantly' kicking and screaming to a soft Brexit. Maybe it suits the EU to facilitate a soft landing for the Tories. It doesn't really matter at the end of the day. Reality will dictate how Britain proceeds from here. And the reality is that they can choose either a hard border or a soft Brexit. But not both.

Calina

kowtow wrote: »

A hard border does not mean that there are no customs controls, simply that they are not operated by heavy physical infrastructure at the border.

My definition of a "soft" border is as follows:

It should allow people that are currently able to move freely under the
CTA to continue to enjoy passport free travel across the border. In the case of goods, where importers and exporters are known to the authorities, any border formalities should be as limited as possible and controls undertaken away from the border

And I continue to believe that such a border is perfectly possible. In my opinion that is the type of border which the UK sought in it's original white paper and will also be the type of border they end up implementing.

Please stop dismissing the suggestion of this kind of border as "rubbish" - if it was rubbish then it wouldn't be under consideration.

There is a distinction to be made between moving people and moving goods. Even as we had passport free travel between the UK and Ireland, we also had border controls to deal with goods. So I am weary of people confusing the issue of controlling the movement of people and the movement of goods.

Your post, however, provides absolutely no support for your belief that a soft boarder is possible. This thread and its parents have already seen people throw the words Switzerland, and Norway/Sweden out as examples of what was possible. Someone even tried Canada. None of these are soft borders, and none of them reflect your aspirations.

The other problem I have is that it may well be under consideration in the UK but the UK already has a shocking bad record in terms of IT infrastructure projects and that in the area where we're not blue sky thinking. This is pure vapourware. That you believe it can be done is one thing. I believe it can be done although the easiest way to deal with it is not to need it at all. But there is absolutely no way it can be done in the time frame concerned.

If you believe otherwise, I'd like to see details of how rather than pure faith.

As a final note - both you and solodeogloria talk about what you believe, what you consider as possible.

With the best will in the world, unless you are decision makers in this area, your opinions are rather irrelevant. What we have to deal with is not what you'd like, but what the UK is likely to do or get. So what you see a soft border as is fine and dandy, but the world is not going to build policy on it necessarily.

kowtow

kowtow wrote: »

A hard border does not mean that there are no customs controls, simply that they are not operated by heavy physical infrastructure at the border.

My definition of a "soft" border is as follows:

It should allow people that are currently able to move freely under the
CTA to continue to enjoy passport free travel across the border. In the case of goods, where importers and exporters are known to the authorities, any border formalities should be as limited as possible and controls undertaken away from the border

And I continue to believe that such a border is perfectly possible. In my opinion that is the type of border which the UK sought in it's original white paper and will also be the type of border they end up implementing.

Please stop dismissing the suggestion of this kind of border as "rubbish" - if it was rubbish then it wouldn't be under consideration.

Two people aim to cross the border, one is entitled to under the CTA, one is not.

Please detail what happens next.

This is a straightforward technical question, political aspirations are all well and good, but when it comes to technical realities, good will doesn't change the situation.

Nody

kowtow wrote: »

Please stop dismissing the suggestion of this kind of border as "rubbish" - if it was rubbish then it wouldn't be under consideration.

You are aware that EU and the rest of the world were laughing when they saw the UK papers right? They were so light on fact you could sell them in the book store under fiction. As you however believe this unique way is somehow possible can you please quote one border outside of EU that fits the requirement? No Customs union, no trade union but purely a FTA between two countries (the movement of people is not relevant in terms of if a border is needed or not).

steddyeddy

The economy of Northern Ireland vs the Republic is widening with forecast economic growth of 4.9% in the Republic this year — in line with consensus — but growth of just 1.4% for the North. Of the 144,000 net additional jobs due to be created on the island of Ireland by the end of 2020, all but 6,000 will be in the Republic

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/reports-show-north-south-gap-is-widening-818076.html

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Christy42 wrote: »

Does the UK have much to offer for the free trade deal? I do not think so. I really don't see not giving the UK a good deal as a punishment. I see it as not giving them a handout.

Btw a free trade deal on a single section is not the same as being in the customs union. It is entirely possible the UK will manage to avoid the four freedoms but get free trade on some goods.

I knew it wouldn't take long for the same old Anglophobia to emerge on this thread.

Of course the UK has lots to offer as a global leader in science, technology, law, financial services, education and insurance as a start. As countries go the UK is definitely one that's pulled above its weight. There's no point saying otherwise just because you don't like Brexit.

Deleted User wrote: »

Two people aim to cross the border, one is entitled to under the CTA, one is not.

Please detail what happens next.

This is a straightforward technical question, political aspirations are all well and good, but when it comes to technical realities, good will doesn't change the situation.

The same as would happen with Schengen if the CTA was actually run properly. One's entitlement to enter the CTA would be checked at the point of entry. The entitlement to continue travelling within the CTA wouldn't be subject to additional checks (like flying to British airports from Ireland today). The Irish Government doesn't reciprocate this in terms of air travel which somewhat lessens the impact of the CTA.

After Brexit the Government have stated that EU nationals would still be able to travel within the EU but not the automatic right to work. This is an important distinction. Employment rights will be checked through employment checks and issuing of social security just like it is today for those on visa waivers.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Are you suggesting having 275+ border posts across the 275+ border crossings between ROI and NI so that you can check the credentials of the passers by to ensure that they are entitled to progress?

Not very soft bordery.

At all.

kowtow

Nody wrote: »

You are aware that EU and the rest of the world were laughing when they saw the UK papers right? They were so light on fact you could sell them in the book store under fiction. As you however believe this unique way is somehow possible can you please quote one border outside of EU that fits the requirement? No Customs union, no trade union but purely a FTA between two countries (the movement of people is not relevant in terms of if a border is needed or not).

Absolutely, and there is no louder laughter and dismissal of the idea than that to be found on this thread.

Which is why the words in my post above, which you are all so quick to dismiss, are not in fact my own. They are lifted directly from an EU report commissioned by the European Parliament's Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the AFCO committee made available during the last few days.

The report is specific to Ireland and lays out potential technical solutions for a border between North and South which is largely electronic ("Smart Border 2.0"), which is compatible with the Customs Union and Single Market and which can / must be implemented regardless of any future political agreement between the EU and the UK. It is intended, specifically to serve as a template not just for Ireland but for the future border between the UK as a whole and the EU.

It is co-authored by a former director of the World Customs Organisation and the ex deputy DDG of Swedish Customs.

The report provides plenty of information, case studies, comparisons, and background and figures for Irish trade. It concludes that a Smart Border is possible and compatible with EU and International law.

It's anybody's guess, of course, why it hasn't been published until now.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdf

solodeogloria

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you suggesting having 275+ border posts across the 275+ border crossings between ROI and NI so that you can check the credentials of the passers by to ensure that they are entitled to progress?

Not very soft bordery.

Good evening!

No. Read my post properly.

Think about Schengen. Two weeks ago I showed up at Folkestone. My entitlement to enter the Schengen area was checked by a French border agent at Folkestone before heading to Calais. I drove onto the train and 35 minutes later I'm in France. I drive to Belgium. I reach the Belgian border at Oostende about 40 minutes later. Was there a check at the border? No. My entitlement was already checked in France.

This is also how the British apply the CTA. I arrive in Dublin. The GNIB agent checks my passport. I get out and hire a car and end up in Lisburn. Was my passport checked? No.

I fly to the UK. Was my passport checked? Not by the Border Force. I can walk out of the airport without seeing anyone. It's only in Dublin where that happens because they add extra restrictions onto the CTA. (These aren't really in keeping with the spirit of the CTA they should just have a separate CTA exit. Like they do in mainland Europe for Schengen flights).

I flew back to the UK from Germany in October. I have to go through the UK Border Force at Stansted. Why? I've entered the CTA from the Schengen area. It's my first port of entry into the CTA. Therefore I need to be checked because I've entered a new border zone.

Travelling within the CTA should be no different from driving from London to Cardiff. Or from Calais to Bruges. It's the Irish airports that break this convention.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

With all due respect, that wall of text is utterly, utterly irrelevant to the question I asked.



Two people, one entitled to free passage under the CTA approach the border with NI from ROI.

What happens next?

solodeogloria

Deleted User wrote: »

With all due respect, that wall of text is utterly, utterly irrelevant to the question I asked.



Two people, one entitled to free passage under the CTA approach the border with NI from ROI.

What happens next?

Good evening!

Nothing. Their entry should be checked when they first arrive in the CTA from outside (the UK or Ireland).

If the person violates their visa by seeking employment or overstaying they can be deported by the GNIB or the UK Border Force.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

The same as would happen with Schengen if the CTA was actually run properly. One's entitlement to enter the CTA would be checked at the point of entry. The entitlement to continue travelling within the CTA wouldn't be subject to additional checks (like flying to British airports from Ireland today). The Irish Government doesn't reciprocate this in terms of air travel which somewhat lessens the impact of the CTA.

After Brexit the Government have stated that EU nationals would still be able to travel within the EU but not the automatic right to work. This is an important distinction. Employment rights will be checked through employment checks and issuing of social security just like it is today for those on visa waivers.

But if someone is entitled to enter Ireland without a visa, how do you propose they are stopped from entering the UK where they would need a visa? The Schengen visa is issued by a government but the CTA at the moment has countries that can enter Ireland without a visa but require a visa to enter the UK.

Professor Moriarty

steddyeddy wrote: »

The economy of Northern Ireland vs the Republic is widening with forecast economic growth of 4.9% in the Republic this year — in line with consensus — but growth of just 1.4% for the North. Of the 144,000 net additional jobs due to be created on the island of Ireland by the end of 2020, all but 6,000 will be in the Republic

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/reports-show-north-south-gap-is-widening-818076.html

As an aside, the Telegraph has this:

The City will have lost 10,500 jobs to rival financial centres by 'day one' of Brexit as a fifth of banks, brokers and asset managers confirm their plans to open hubs or relocate staff once the UK leaves the EU.

Double the amount of companies now plan on moving jobs post-Brexit compared to this time a year ago, according to accountant EY, although the amount of roles thought to be impacted has shrunk by 2,000.

However the firm, which tracked 222 financial institutions during November, warned that "many" of the 10,500 roles set to go will be client-facing, front-office jobs and not the back office roles originally expected.

If this is being reported in the Tory press, I wonder what the real story is. If only there were some sector analyses done that we could look at.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Use the proper names of people and organisations please.

flaneur

I'd agree on the way the CTA operates at present - Ireland's the one that's been doing double passport checks on inward passengers from the UK. I have always felt much more like I was being made welcome entering the UK from Ireland than Ireland from the UK. I don't really understand the logic of that as Ireland has inward flights from 4 continents too and I think we are applying a double standard, whatever the excuses around the CTA, I can't see why we can't have proper facilities for CTA passengers. Dublin is the 3rd largest airport in these islands and significantly bigger than anything outside of London. It's also handling huge numbers or CTA passengers, yet it has no CTA gates or terminal?

Not only that, they built brand new terminals at Dublin and Cork and provided no CTA routes through rhem, despite the fact that the CTA represents both airports busiest routes.

Also the whole thing of putting passengers through immigration on domestic flights in Ireland from regional airports is utter insanity. There should always have been separate gates, particularly in Dublin but also in Cork and Shannon.

This is where I find the CTA a bit of a mess and an agreement that has little behind it in terms of hard rules or facts and I think Ireland's every bit as culpable in only taking it seriously when it feels like it.

Sorry if this is a bit of a post that undermines the Irish position, I'm totally opposed to the idea of any border with NI or messing up of the CTA but I think both criticism and credit are due where they are due. I think the UK airports have operated the CTA very fairly and extended a sense of welcome, while Ireland or at least the airports, haven't really bothered.

The CTA is a far inferior setup to Schengen as there's no visa union and only very limited mutual recognition of visas for Chinese and Indian nationals for travel-only.

It's already an absolute fudge as it allows ID-less absolute free travel for Irish and UK nationals only. Others travel based on normal international arrangements either as EU citizens, on visa waivers or with full visas only.

Since you can't really tell what a UK or Irish citizen looks like as they aren't necessarily of a particular ethnicity and may be naturalised citizens and may not even have British or Irish accents, we clearly allow two systems to coexist, completely interconnectedly without a border and with basically spot checks.

I think they bodes well for a future agreement as I can't really see much changing there at all. It's already a weird setup to start with and doesn't really get any weirder other than a trade barrier appears.

The customs border is the only issue I foresee here. I can't really see any reason why the CTA would be complicated at all, unless someone decides to make it complicated for no good reason.

Nody

kowtow wrote: »

Absolutely, and there is no louder laughter and dismissal of the idea than that to be found on this thread.

Did you bother to actually read the report? It quotes two examples of Sweden - Norway (both EEA members) and USA - Canada (NAFTA members) which are both not FTA countries but in a customs union; a.k.a. does not meet the requirements of UK leaving EU. Hence you have yet to give a valid example of a country to country FTA with a land border that actually works.

Secondly are you seriously suggesting that UK will be able to implement the systems in 2 years time for that from scratch when their current customs system which has taken over 5 years to implement based on known EU customs rules? Or have the mobile customs unit which operate within 15km of the border (as the example of Norway & Sweden) to do the checks, laws in place for cross border customs controls, implement mutual recognition (which usually takes decades to put in place) etc.?

The example they give in the report is in a perfect world scenario of what could possibly be done but is currently not existing anywhere. So excuse me for calling fiction fiction because so far all you've done is wave a theoretical report that don't back up your argument as a fact of how the mythical high tech UK / IE border can work by time of Brexit happening. If UK had a decade to implement it there might be a chance; with the current deadlines there is no way in hell that it will happen that way.

kowtow

I certainly read the parts that confirm that the three examples given are not part of a customs union. I'm not sure if you did.

But I appreciate your consistency in dismissing the EU report as rubbish as well as the original British paper.

Nevertheless whatever you may think of the difficulty of implementing such an approach it is not correct to say that it would be inconsistent with international law as your reply suggested.

Edit: sorry it Emmets post which suggested the inconsistency not yours!

flaneur

I don't think it's going to be possible, without the EU and UK both retaining mutual recognition of standards it won't work (and that means effectively the UK adopting EU standards - it's not in any position to get the EU to recognise new British standards).

Also the UK has a poor track record in this area anyway.

They failed to implement EU standards at ports and are facing a €2 billion fine.

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

I just don't see this working at all unless the UK effectively stays in the customs union, or whatever wording is used to allow that to sit with the Brexiteers.

All of the proposals from the Brexiteer side have been about weakening regulation and lowering standards. That's not going to fly at all.

Switzerland, iceland and Norway have exceptionally high standards for goods etc, often exceeding EU norms. The UK would likely be the polar opposite to that because it's very much focused on letting the market regulate itself.

This is where I think you'll end up with an impossible situation with NI. The EU will put standards ahead of any fudge there, as its main objective is to ensure the integrity of the single market.

I think the Tories would like to move to a cheap imports, low standards, let the market self regulate type of environment. That is unlikely to wash with the EU or the USA for a free trade agreement either, both of those markets are highly regulated.

I'm not sure that British voters would appreciate lowering of food standards, product safety or environmental standards either. There's a bit of a bubble in the Tories that's really hard core free market capitalism and isn't really reflective of British public opinion.

Bear in mind that a lot of people voted to leave having been sold a promise of improved social services like more funding for the NHS... That's very much at odds with what's being offered.

kowtow

kowtow wrote: »

I certainly read the parts that confirm that the three examples given are not part of a customs union. I'm not sure if you did.

But I appreciate your consistency in dismissing the EU report as rubbish as well as the original British paper.

Nevertheless whatever you may think of the difficulty of implementing such an approach it is not correct to say that it would be inconsistent with international law as your reply suggested.

Edit: sorry it Emmets post which suggested the inconsistency not yours!

Deleted User wrote: »

I think I'll implode if I see this rubbish written any more.

If the UK don't operate border controls on their border with the EU whilst not in a specific customs arrangement, they have no ability to negotiate free trade with any other countries, namely because they will have unilaterally granted those FTAs to all WTO members and have zero leverage behind trying to get a bilateral offering.

The WTO MFN rules render this the case.

If the either the EU or the UK permits a 'wink wink nudge nudge' border in Ireland to exist, they must grant these conditions to any and all members of the WTO.

If the UK does leave the Single Market and Custom's Union, as Theresa May has made clear is her intention, there is currently no possible way to not have a hard border. None.

If there was, then other countries would be already doing it, as it's clearly cheaper to not require border infrastructure and staff than not.

page 40 - http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdf

6.3.3 What is required for a Smart Border 2.0 solution?

• A bilateral EU-UK agreement regulating advanced customs cooperation avoiding duplication and with possibility to carry out tasks on each other ;
• Mutual recognition of Authorised Economic Operators (AEO);
• A Customs-to-Customs technical agreement on exchange of risk data;
• Pre-registration of Operators (AEO) and People (Trusted Commercial Travellers programme in combination with a Certified Taxable Person programme);
• Identification system by the border;
• A Single Window with one-stop-shop-elements;
• A Unique Consignment reference number (UCR);
• Simplified Customs declaration system (100% electronic) with re-use of export data for imports;
• Mobile Control and Inspection Units;
• Technical surveillance of the border (CCTV, ANPR etc).

The unilateral declaration of "We won't put up a border" is utter nonsense.

What if the UK can't achieve a custom's agreement with the EU? In the absence of an agreement, as I have pointed out, unless the UK unilaterally wishes to grant free access to all and sundry, it will be putting up a border.

It's not a pariah state, Theresa May said they recognise their international obligations.

swampgas

I'm assuming that the current Brexit omnishambles is down to incompetence and a massively divided Tory party, but if I put on my tin foil hat I can think of an alternative - that there is a cunning plan to offload NI on Ireland and free themselves of the cost of propping up NI and/or avoid the entanglements of the GFA when doing a deal with the EU.

The plan would be to make Brexit look as disastrous as possible right now, make the government look utterly incompetent, hoping to get NI to jump ship with a border poll, and then either reverse course completely (no Brexit, but no NI either) or else hard Brexit without the worry of a UK-EU land border.

Ridiculous? I know it is. But given that Brexit has been in Poe's Law territory for some time, who can be sure of anything?

kowtow

Deleted User wrote:

The unilateral declaration of "We won't put up a border" is utter nonsense.

Deleted User wrote:

What if the UK can't achieve a custom's agreement with the EU?

The agreements referred to on page 40 are technical, rather than standards based, as I understand it although clearly all the case studies in the report describe countries where most goods have mutual recognition even if there is not a legal customs union.

In other circumstances mutual recognition might be difficult but given that both the EU and the UK are starting from the same point it should surely be easier in this case.

I take your point that it would be an odd solution if it was only implemented on one side by the UK.. but why wouldn't Irish exporters register to use it? And in such a scenario how would the EU/ Ireland satisfy their WTO obligations?

The British would invite Irish exporters to make electronic declarations and the Irish would do ... What exactly?

flaneur

swampgas wrote: »

I'm assuming that the current Brexit omnishambles is down to incompetence and a massively divided Tory party, but if I put on my tin foil hat I can think of an alternative - that there is a cunning plan to offload NI on Ireland and free themselves of the cost of propping up NI and/or avoid the entanglements of the GFA when doing a deal with the EU.

The plan would be to make Brexit look as disastrous as possible right now, make the government look utterly incompetent, hoping to get NI to jump ship with a border poll, and then either reverse course completely (no Brexit, but no NI either) or else hard Brexit without the worry of a UK-EU land border.

Ridiculous? I know it is. But given that Brexit has been in Poe's Law territory for some time, who can be sure of anything?

To be honest, I don’t think so. They aren’t really thinking things through at all. I don’t think there’s any long game at all. It’s mostly about a bunch of Tories fighting for power in their own party. Many of them likely don’t even really know much about NI and assumed it votes Tory.

sigh. One last time. The point is straightforward.

The UK leaving the Single Market and Customs union (not leaving the EU) necessitates a customs border being created on the Island of Ireland. That is a simple fact.

It is that act by the UK Government that is creating that border. The nonsense that Rees-Mogg and others have been permitted to get away with unchecked about 'not putting up a border' is just that, nonsense.

The EU will, in the absence of a specific customs arrangement, require that Ireland police the border appropriately, just as any other country within the EU with a customs border with other countries does. They will require this, as without it, they will effectively undermine/remove the entire customs boundary that the Single Market relies upon, given the MFN rules at the WTO.

Substitute the UK in for 'EU' above, and prefix Ireland with Northern and you'll see the situation is the same on both sides of the border.

The border that is being created by the decision of the UK Government, in Theresa May's Lancaster House speech, to leave the Single Market and the Customs Union.

The paper highlights Norway-Sweden (Customs cooperation made possible and extremely straightforward through both being part of EEA), and suggests it is a model which can help. This model was directly open to Theresa May to chose, and she chose otherwise. The UK could have left the EU, and the social chapter, and the political realm, and instead settled into the area of cooperation it had quite clearly been more suited to for the last decade, the EEA.

But May chose otherwise.

Leave the Customs Union, stay in Single Market and the UK is Norway - http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86295 + http://www.eureferendum.com/documents/BrexitMonograph016.pdf

flaneur

It’s a classic tool of propaganda - blame “others” on everything.

Implement a problematic, potentially very economically damaging policy and blame someone else, particularly if they’re “an other”.

If the British electorate buy it they’re pretty dim and if people in Ireland (the Republic or The North) buy it, they’re absolute morons. It would be very disappointing if Irish people buy this line. It’s intended to divide us and intended to drive a wedge between Ireland and the EU.

This border is being caused by the Tories. It is not being caused by the EU or the Irish Government or anyone else.

breatheme

Anyone heard about the petition for a second referendum? It got shot down by Parliament. So the UK is leaving, no takebacksies.
Link: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200004

Blowfish

breatheme wrote: »

Anyone heard about the petition for a second referendum? It got shot down by Parliament. So the UK is leaving, no takebacksies.
Link: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200004

Well, as far as I understand it, there's no guaranteed provision in Article 50 to allow a country to reverse its decision. Once triggered, that's it, you are gone either way.

I suppose a referendum solely on whether to accept or reject the deal would be possible though.

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

A hard border does not mean that there are no customs controls, simply that they are not operated by heavy physical infrastructure at the border.

My definition of a "soft" border is as follows:

It should allow people that are currently able to move freely under the
CTA to continue to enjoy passport free travel across the border. In the case of goods, where importers and exporters are known to the authorities, any border formalities should be as limited as possible and controls undertaken away from the border. . .

That may be your your definition, but I don't think it reflects what's in the Joint Report agreed between the EU and the UK.

The Joint Report doesn't use the term "soft border", but it does use the term "hard border", and explains it in para 43: ". . . a hard border, including any
physical infrastructure or related checks and controls". So a soft border, I think, requires no physical infrastructure, and no related checks and controls. That's not "limited" border formalities, and checks/controls "undertaken away from the border"; it's no infrastructure, and no related checks and controls.

A soft border is what we have now, in other words.

And this reading is consistent with what the Joint Report goes on to say in para 49. The fallback position, the default that will prevail if nothing else is agreed, is that the UK will maintain "full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement". Right now, the "all-island economy" operates on the basis that there are no checks or controls on goods crossing the border - neither at the border, nor "undertaken away from the border". The default is that the UK will maintain alignment with SM/CU rules which support this degree of freedom. And, given that that's the default which the UK has committed to maintain in the absence of any agreement, why would we expect the EU to make an agreement which delivered anything less?

Peregrinus

Blowfish wrote: »

Well, as far as I understand it, there's no guaranteed provision in Article 50 to allow a country to reverse its decision. Once triggered, that's it, you are gone either way.

I suppose a referendum solely on whether to accept or reject the deal would be possible though.

Article 50 is simply silent about whether notice of withdrawal, once given, can be revoked by the UK.

There's academic argument over the question of whether general principles of international law would mean that it can be revoked by the UK.

Myself, I think what matters here is not the legal considerations but the political considerations. The question will never arise unless there is a signficant shift in UK public opinion, such that a UK government wants to revoke the Art. 50 notice. We're a long way from that happening right now.

But, in that situation, I'm pretty sure that, rather than just announce the revocation, the UK government would approach the E-27 and sound them out. Would they be receptive? Would there be a price to be paid for their reciptivity? Etc, etc. And I don't think the UK would announce a revocation unless it was pretty sure that the other member states were going to welcome that, and accept it. And of course if the EU-27 accept the revocation, the question of whether they were legally bound by it, whether the UK had a right to revoke the notice with or without their agreement, will never arise.

For the record, if the UK government were minded to revoke the Art 50 notice, they don't - legally speaking - need to hold a second referendum to seek approval. For political reasons they might judge that to be wise, or even essential, and of course the EU-27 might be reluctant to accept revocation if not endorsed by a referendum. But, legally speaking, whether to hold a referendum is a matter for the UK, not the EU, and as a matter of UK law no referendum would be necessary.