Brexit discussion thread III

Capt'n Midnight

The continual drip-drip feed of Brexit won't be a great deal.
If Turkey and Ukraine can get a similar deal then the EU can't be too worried about whatever cards the UK holds.


Brexit: German minister sees model for Turkey and Ukraine

Fred_Johnson

I have a feeling from listening to David Davis (God help me), that the one area the British are willing to compromise on is money. In other words, they are willing to pay a few billion per year in exchange for...something. The question is what. My fear, and I hope i'm wrong, is that the British and EU will come to a deal where the British pay a few billion a year in exchange for financial passporting. Because the British know how vital the sector is and the EU knows it needs access to London capital markets. This would be bad for Dublin as we'd lose out on all the recently announced Brexit movements from London. I know Barnier says that a pick and choose approach is impossible, but the EU may cave on this. Hopefully not but I can see it happening, not until late in the day at the last moment.

flaneur

I'm not sure the EU will cave. There's really no reason why they would feel they need to.

After the Eurozone experienced the financial crisis, there's been a trend towards wanting to consolidate and regulate the financial system much more, to ensure future stability.

Allowing the UK to act as a regulatory haven has always been an issue and I think this is really been a huge own goal for the British as the ECB will take it as an opportunity to bring a lot of stuff back into the Eurozone regulatory system.

Enzokk

Fred_Johnson wrote: »

I have a feeling from listening to David Davis (God help me), that the one area the British are willing to compromise on is money. In other words, they are willing to pay a few billion per year in exchange for...something. The question is what. My fear, and I hope i'm wrong, is that the British and EU will come to a deal where the British pay a few billion a year in exchange for financial passporting. Because the British know how vital the sector is and the EU knows it needs access to London capital markets. This would be bad for Dublin as we'd lose out on all the recently announced Brexit movements from London. I know Barnier says that a pick and choose approach is impossible, but the EU may cave on this. Hopefully not but I can see it happening, not until late in the day at the last moment.

Who knows what will be negotiated, but the problem for the UK is that any deal they negotiate as a third country will have an effect on other deals the EU has with other third countries. If the UK gets a sweetheart deal then other countries will want the same and once the precedent is set then the EU will have to give it as well. So that is why the only likely deal will be one that has already been negotiated and it will only be tweaked.

Jim2007

Fred_Johnson wrote: »

My fear, and I hope i'm wrong, is that the British and EU will come to a deal where the British pay a few billion a year in exchange for financial passporting.

The reality is that the EU needs little or nothing from London! Most of the games played in London are not needed for a functioning market. Bond auctions will go on as before, but UK finance houses will need access to these markets if they are to stay in the game. Corporate financing can be done out of Frankfurt or NY as London will no longer have an advantage over NY and so on.

Finance is not like manufacturing, capabilities can be moved very quickly should the need arise.

On the other hand we can have a situation where a major Euro player is outside the jurisdiction of the ECJ, ECB etc... it would mean that some players could bet against the the Euro economy risk free etc...

I don’t see any possibility of the UK being granted the kind of access they have today without them fully accepting the role of the ECB, EBA, ECJ etc..

Fred_Johnson

Jim2007 wrote: »

I don’t see any possibility of the UK being granted the kind of access they have today without them fully accepting the role of the ECB, EBA, ECJ etc..

Thing is, I suspect the British may be willing to compromise, a lot, when it comes to the narrow area of financial services. They may allow ECB, EBA oversight etc and some sort of dispute resolution mechanism. Why wouldn't they? After all most financial regulations are global, and most of the EU regulations had a large British input anyway. The UK is already fully compliant, obviously.

The British may offer a few billion euros and allow their financial industry to be overseen just as it is now by European institutions. It's an offer like that which may be tempting to exhausted EU negotiators at the last minute.

Water John

Ah, but would they allow a transaction tax?

CelticRambler

I can't see any circumstances in which the EU will allow the UK to benefit from a concession that the EU is not prepared to make to Switzerland, with whom they at least have a stable relationship and several areas of agreement/alignment. Most Swiss financial passporting is done through London: why would the EU make a gift of that to the troublesome child while denying it to the sensible one?

Fred_Johnson

CelticRambler wrote: »

I can't see any circumstances in which the EU will allow the UK to benefit from a concession that the EU is not prepared to make to Switzerland, with whom they at least have a stable relationship and several areas of agreement/alignment. Most Swiss financial passporting is done through London: why would the EU make a gift of that to the troublesome child while denying it to the sensible one?

The importance of London as a financial centre for the entire EU cannot be underestimated. This is not quite the same situation with Switzerland, although it is a major wealth management centre as well. Yes, people can be moved to the continent, but the eco-system within London cannot be replicated overnight elsewhere. Sure, New York banks could come in but that could take a long time to set up. My instinct tells me the EU may prefer to continue dealing with London, with some sort of regulatory control over its financial system. If there's one thing the EU absolutely adores, it's the status quo.

You may be right, who knows. I just don't trust the EU negotiators to not make concessions. Look at the last minute major concessions they made during the Greek bailout negotiations. I know it's a different team, but still.

murphaph

It's also political dynamite domestically for the Tories if they are seen to be throwing money at the City while the marginal seats in the more working class areas see manufacturing jobs lost. They are only in government because of these marginal seats.

Tell me how

Fred_Johnson wrote:

The importance of London as a financial centre for the entire EU cannot be underestimated. This is not quite the same situation with Switzerland, although it is a major wealth management centre as well. Yes, people can be moved to the continent, but the eco-system within London cannot be replicated overnight elsewhere. Sure, New York banks could come in but that could take a long time to set up. My instinct tells me the EU may prefer to continue dealing with London, with some sort of regulatory control over its financial system. If there's one thing the EU absolutely adores, it's the status quo.

As a previous poster said, moving financial operations is not that difficult.
It doesn't have to happen overnight, they've between now and March 2019 to do it.

There is no advantage in the EU looking like they need to go outside of it for such a practice as this.

Sam Russell

Tell me how wrote: »

As a previous poster said, moving financial operations is not that difficult.
It doesn't have to happen overnight, they've between now and March 2019 to do it.

There is no advantage in the EU looking like they need to go outside of it for such a practice as this.

There is likely to be a transition period of up to 2 years which gives time for the key operations to move. If the transition is basically continued EU membership but no seat at the table, that situation brings a certain time frame for the furniture vans to be ordered and the cardboard boxes lined up in the hall. If that is what is happening, there will be an orderly exit from London to Paris, Frankfurt and (hopefully) Dublin - Bankers and traders first.

Calina

Tbh it is naive to assume the EU negotiators are likely to capitulate to the UK given how thjngs have gone so far.

But I also would not expect much high value to travel to Dublin. As a city to live in it has very little to offer to wealthy people compared to Frankfurt, Paris or Amsterdam and in particular, infrastructurally, it is catastrophic.

Tell me how

Sam Russell wrote:

If that is what is happening, there will be an orderly exit from London to Paris, Frankfurt and (hopefully) Dublin - Bankers and traders first.

I hope our elected representatives remember this and don't try to bring down the government over something trivial which would show case some of our parish pump politics tendencies at a time when one of the things the EU will be looking for is government stability.

An Ciarraioch

Have we covered Clegg's knighthood?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/26/nick-clegg-to-be-knighted-in-new-year-honours

flaneur

Key facts being lost on the British media at the moment.

1. The EU and Eurozone in particular, needs financial services regulation and stability. It does not need chaos being caused by the UK or Switzerland operating as financial services havens, effectively adding risk to the Eurozone economies, removing control of regulatory bodies and also really behaving like a leech on their economy. So Brexit is a great opportunity to tame London and remove it from the equation entirely. It also takes a whole network of British tax havens out of the system too - Channel Islands, Isle of Man etc.

2. If the EU gives the UK a deal that grants it benefits of 'cake and eat it' level where it can undermine EU members' economically, then other countries would be effectively forced into positions where they would come under pressure to leave too. You can't really expect the EU to throw its own members under the bus for the sake of the UK, which is what a deal like that would do.

3. The further you get away from the UK, and Ireland is very much in the UK bubble, the less Brexit matters. Most of the continental press isn't even paying all that much attention to it. Things will move on. It's not a question of anyone wishing the UK any harm, but rather they just don't really care / pay that much attention or see this as an obstacle to get over and just get on with life afterwards.

4. The UK is causing the EU huge amounts of instability and risk at the moment by doing this. If Brexit doesn't happen cleanly, what's to say that this doesn't drag on for years, or even decades or repeat and you get Brexit 2.0 and then Brexit Part Three. There's enough to be getting on with without having that headache hanging around.

5. Aspects of the UK body politic and media political commentary has been incredibly aggressive towards the EU - to the point of calling for it to be disbanded, calling for all sorts of harm to be caused to the it and to the Eurozone. That has created a sense of just wanting to get away from the whole situation sooner rather than later.


The world doesn't revolve around Brexit! Patience is wearing thin and I think the British are only seeing this from their own perspective.

Capt'n Midnight

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Have we covered Clegg's knighthood?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/26/nick-clegg-to-be-knighted-in-new-year-honours

My understanding is that the govt can nix this, it's the Queen's decision. Clegg has been a bit too anti-brexit.
https://www.gov.uk/honours

Whether someone gets an honour - and the honour they get - is decided by an honours committee. The committee’s recommendations go to the Prime Minister and then to the Queen, who awards the honour.

Who makes the recommendation https://www.gov.uk/guidance/honours-committees#parliamentary-and-political-service

Tell me how

flaneur wrote:

The world doesn't revolve around Brexit! Patience is wearing thin and I think the British are only seeing this from their own perspective.

Not being smart, but that's pretty much been the message on this thread with 3 months.

I understand Brexit can't look attractive to other nations though as ultimately then we'd have more countries angling to leave and then the EU concept would really be in trouble.

I'd be curious on how to make it the best Brexit from an Irish perspective. I don't simply mean no border in the north but we do want to have as much trade as we can with the UK. It's not in our best interests to continually laugh at the UK God save the Queen viewpoints, ludicrous and all as they are.

Leroy42

Tell me how wrote: »

It's not in our best interests to continually laugh at the UK God save the Queen viewpoints, ludicrous and all as they are.

I don't think anybody is laughing, I think the majority of posters get the need for the UK to remain strong and healthy. But they also see that it appears the the UK is currently basing its future, and ours, on nothing more that a few slogans and a few renditions of the Great Escape.

They appear utterly clueless, both in terms of what they actually want and how they can achieve it. Certainly none of our politicians have acted in the way IDS or the likes have when showing both contempt and ignorance of our situation (claiming on an interview that we were only playing tough on the border because of an upcoming presidential election!)

Simply look at the reaction to the passport colour announcement. Plenty of people claiming that it was taking back control, when they never lost that control.

I don't think people are laughing, but plenty of people of getting pretty exasperated trying to talk serious issues with people who have nothing but faith on which to base their opinion, but very quickly call out anybody who doesn't agree with them.

There isn't even an agreed outcome. What does Brexit mean? It can mean anything really. To anybody. EU has its 4 principles. UK cannot even agree on 1.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't think anybody is laughing, I think the majority of posters get the need for the UK to remain strong and healthy. But they also see that it appears the the UK is currently basing its future, and ours, on nothing more that a few slogans and a few renditions of the Great Escape.

They appear utterly clueless, both in terms of what they actually want and how they can achieve it. Certainly none of our politicians have acted in the way IDS or the likes have when showing both contempt and ignorance of our situation (claiming on an interview that we were only playing tough on the border because of an upcoming presidential election!)

Simply look at the reaction to the passport colour announcement. Plenty of people claiming that it was taking back control, when they never lost that control.

I don't think people are laughing, but plenty of people of getting pretty exasperated trying to talk serious issues with people who have nothing but faith on which to base their opinion, but very quickly call out anybody who doesn't agree with them.

There isn't even an agreed outcome. What does Brexit mean? It can mean anything really. To anybody. EU has its 4 principles. UK cannot even agree on 1.

The thing is doomed to abject failure IMO. The public in their great wisdom voted to implement something that their government and parliament were opposed to and for which absolutely zero planning had been done. This can only end very badly.

flaneur

Tell me how wrote: »

Not being smart, but that's pretty much been the message on this thread with 3 months.

I understand Brexit can't look attractive to other nations though as ultimately then we'd have more countries angling to leave and then the EU concept would really be in trouble.

I'd be curious on how to make it the best Brexit from an Irish perspective. I don't simply mean no border in the north but we do want to have as much trade as we can with the UK. It's not in our best interests to continually laugh at the UK God save the Queen viewpoints, ludicrous and all as they are.

Realistically, the only least worst option that’s possible is the UK remaining in the customs union. If they don’t, you’re really looking at a major impact here.

It would actually be in Ireland (including Northern Ireland’s) best interest to derail Brexit entirely. I know we probably won’t as we are too polite to interfere in the debate, but that would be our best outcome.

If the DUP really had Northern Ireland’s long term economic and social interests at heart, they would pull the plug on this mess and let a general election roll on.

The Tories will probably not pay that promised £ billion or it will become some kind of fudge and you’ll find they NI economy suffers under austerity.

They’ve already voted against the Tories on a number of unpalatable issues and they’re not an economically right wing party - just in a time warp when it comes to social issues.

Also if the Tories push ahead with this, the prospect of a United Ireland is far more likely in the next decade or so. So if anything the DUP are going to end the status quo and usher in a period of potentially serious instability. They’re really risking the future of NI for the Tories ?! Are they that short sighted and naive ?

Capt'n Midnight

flaneur wrote: »

RSo if anything the DUP are going to end the status quo and usher in a period of potentially serious instability. They’re really risking the future of NI for the Tories ?! Are they that short sighted and naive ?

They've ignored everyone apart from their core vote for ages. And they will start to get frustrated if services aren't delivered because there's no Assembly.

Thing to remember about the Assembly is that they DUP can no longer veto stuff by suing a Petition of Concern.


The demographics are changing. There's immigrants in NI that couldn't care less about NI's historical baggage. There's moderate unionists too, many of whom voted against Brexit, others who don't subscribe to the DUP world view on social issues.

It's not a problem today, but the DUP can ignore it at their peril as it could be very important at the next election.

flaneur

I think rural NI and the business community will not forgive them if this goes very badly for Northern Ireland.

A few diehard loyalists may be going around with smug grins, but the rest of the population seem very happy with the status quo.

Ironically what the DUP are doing may well hasten the arrival of a United Ireland too!

Jim2007

Fred_Johnson wrote: »

The importance of London as a financial centre for the entire EU cannot be underestimated.

If London cannot offer itself as the gateway to Europe, it has no advantage over NY or Singapore for anyone seeking access to either Euro bonds or European sources of finance. Going the opposite way again from outside the EU London cannot offer an easier way to access world financial markets over going to NY or Singapore. It will simply add another layer of complexity as a third country.

flaneur

Also, what's to stop Europe using any other financial centre? What's special about London?

I mean, other than that it's physically close?

We would have no particular relationship with London that would be any better than Wall Street or Hong Kong, so why not just use those for whatever services may take a while to develop in EU centres?
Surely we would just shop around for whatever financial centre is best value or most useful. London would no longer be anything special.

London would be outside the EU, at best like Zurich but more likely about as close as Wall Street.

Also, the UK would have shown itself to be quite openly hostile to the EU and the concept of the EU.

One could also arrogantly and grossly over estimate the uniqueness and importance of London as a financial centre to the EU.

CelticRambler

It might be worth remembering that "London" knew right well what the stakes were, and voted to remain (despite the DUP's London-only wrap-around newspaper advert encouraging them to do otherwise :pac: ) It's not the City's fault that Home Counties xenophobes are driving the Big Red Bus towards the cliff.

Enzokk

So it seems according to this tweet and article that David Davis is being sidelined and, and the tweet points out, an un-elected bureaucrat is leading the negotiations with the EU. This person also meets directly with Theresa May so its not just a case of the civil servants doing the prep work, this is someone meeting the chief negotiators of the EU and then meeting the PM. David Davis seems to be the face of Brexit only.

https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/946308176126922752

Jim2007

flaneur wrote: »

London would be outside the EU, at best like Zurich but more likely about as close as Wall Street.

Except that Zurich is not even in that game. Zurich is mainly Asset Management and Wealth Management at this stage. And it is all about selling into Switzerland rather than the other way around - it is very easy for EU institutions to offer their products in Switzerland, so a Swiss asset manager can offer a very wide range of products to their clients.

At this stage bank secrecy is more or less restricted to Swiss citizens, so things have changed dramatically over say the past 10 years or so. Most of the major Swiss banks now have subsidiaries in Dublin, Luxembourg, Frankfurt, Milan etc.. who concentrate mainly on developing investment products for sale back into the Swiss market. Which are in turn picked up by Swiss asset managers working for clients such as the Singapore Sovereign Fund etc...

steddyeddy

Macron will make Britain pay for customs posts at Calais post Brexit it seems. It all adds up to a very costly mistake.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5223024/emmanuel-macron-will-force-britain-to-pay-for-the-cost-of-setting-up-customs-posts-at-calais-after-brexit/

flaneur

steddyeddy wrote: »

Macron will make Britain pay for customs posts at Calais post Brexit it seems. It all adds up to a very costly mistake.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5223024/emmanuel-macron-will-force-britain-to-pay-for-the-cost-of-setting-up-customs-posts-at-calais-after-brexit/

I just see rant, rant, francophobia, jingoism!

Reality: "He said the bill should be shared between France, the UK and other European countries, adding that Britain has a duty to “provide some funding”."

Basically France asked for a reasonable contribution from the UK and other EU countries and the Sun is throwing a strop.

Leroy42

flaneur wrote: »

I just see rant, rant, francophobia, jingoism!

Reality is : "He said the bill should be shared between France, the UK and other European countries, adding that Britain has a duty to “provide some funding”."

Why though? Surely the onus is on France to secure their own border, and Uk to secure theirs. I understand that the camp is a way to stop them travelling to UK in the 1st place but surely the French can't simply let undocumented leave without valid checks.

I know the people are leaving (or at least trying to) and the camp was set up to effectively keep them away from the UK, but I'm just questioning what rights France have to demand payment for what is, IMO, simply adhering to international law

flaneur

Because the UK has an agreement with France to put UK border controls on French territory to avoid having a holding area and queues in Britian.

If you want France to facilitate that, you need to pay.

Why would France spend millions and millions of Euro doing this for the UK?

France could very reasonably just end that agreement and let the UK deal with its own borders in the UK.

Leroy42

Why do they do it now? Part of it, I think, is that they do hold a certain responsibility to not simply allow undocumented to enter and then leave the country.

flaneur

They do it now because of a bilateral agreement. Brexit will massively increase the space and work required on the French side.

This could involve extra security, acquiring farm land to use for holding area as and border facilities and so on.

It's not a minor undertaking and the UK media and political commentary seems to think you can just snap your fingers and have everything work.

You could be talking about vastly more complex screening of trucks and huge queues both directions.

You're talking about a potentially huge customs operation dealing with tax and excise and so on.

This article is basically hot air. The French have made a very reasonable request that the UK and other European countries foot some of the bill for this. It's not an exclusively French issue. It's a common EU border and the UK has caused a huge extra complication and should foot a significant proportion of the bill.

An Ciarraioch

The SNP propose a Westminster conference on January 8th to consolidate a Soft Brexit alliance, but it seems unlikely that Labour will sign up:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/28/snp-invites-opposition-leaders-cross-party-summit-fight-hard-brexit

steddyeddy

What will Brexit Britain look like in the worst case scenario?

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why do they do it now? Part of it, I think, is that they do hold a certain responsibility to not simply allow undocumented to enter and then leave the country.

There’s no general duty in international law under which a country has on obligation to others to stop people leaving. Countries are not prisons, and stopping people from leaving is generally considered the mark of a pretty odious tyranny.

Plus, both France and the UK are signatories to the Refugee Convention. People who wish to seek protection in the UK have a right to seek it and France has a right not to impede that. If the UK doesn’t maintain a system whereby people in France can apply for protection, I doubt that France can stop them leaving for the UK to apply there.

flaneur

The current situation only dates back to the early 2000s where they agreed "Juxtaposed controls"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposed_controls

That's been a hugely contentious issue in French politics because it created "the jungle" situation, the ending of which is a major policy of Marine Le Pen. It's a very serious political issue in France and there's no way they're going to allow it to become even more of an unfair burden.

France could, quite reasonably, end or renegotiate the Treaty of Le Touquet (2003) because of changes due to Brexit.

Effectively, because the UK can push the consequences of its immigration and customs policies into France, they don't have to deal with them locally and there's no political pressure.

Out of sight, out of kind and all that.

steddyeddy

Good news as Goldman Sachs chooses Dublin as base for its European asset management unit.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/7016bc9a-e34b-11e7-97e2-916d4fbac0da

Capt'n Midnight

flaneur wrote: »

Because the UK has an agreement with France to put UK border controls on French territory to avoid having a holding area and queues in Britian.

If you want France to facilitate that, you need to pay.

Why would France spend millions and millions of Euro doing this for the UK?

France could very reasonably just end that agreement and let the UK deal with its own borders in the UK.

The lovely bit for the UK is that they simply don't have enough land for existing queues. White cliffs of Dover and all that.

https://www.dfdsseaways.co.uk/customer-service/dover-dunkirk/dover-travel-disruption

Operation stack is a procedure that uses parts of the M20 to queue up to 3,00 heavy goods vehicles (HGV's) travelling towards the continent, to avoid gridlock on Kent's roads. It is implemented whenever there is an urgent need to inhibit the flow of freight traffic to the Port of Dover or Channel Tunnel due to capacity ​restraints.

And when that's full - If junction 8 to junction 11 reaches capacity, Highways England will use Manston airfield to park Port of Dover freight.


Same in Wales except the volume of traffic is now much higher than the last time there were controls. And land ain't cheap in Dublin Port (it's all artificial) or Dun Laoghaire.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-41497922

"Since we last had borders 25 years ago, we're dealing with a 700% increase in the number of lorries. To deal with those huge volumes [with controls], it's hard to imagine how we'd cope; we'd adapt but that's the scale of it.

"We're hoping there will be an e-solution for these borders because the flow of traffic through this port is 24/7. For example, last night 400 lorries came off two ferries in 25 minutes and were on to the A55 and onto the UK network."

For stuff that's not time critical there's this
https://afloat.ie/port-news/dublin-port/item/37536-world-s-largest-ro-ro-ferry-to-be-introduced-on-dublin-routes-linking-mainland-europe

the giant 234m ro-ro freight ferry M.V. Celine with a capacity of 8,000 lane meters on the Ireland-Belgium route.

But for time critical stuff like fresh food shipping via the UK is the preferred route, unless the ports get log jammed ,in which case everyone looses as the product isn't worth as much.
https://www.politico.eu/article/cargo-food-production-producers-brexit-burns-irelands-british-bridge-to-eu-markets/

Jim2007

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why do they do it now? Part of it, I think, is that they do hold a certain responsibility to not simply allow undocumented to enter and then leave the country.

Not at all there is no such responsibility, it was a case of one member state accommodating any other. That will die as a result of A50 and it will become an EU issue as France alone can no longer enter into such an agreement with a third country.

lawred2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why do they do it now? Part of it, I think, is that they do hold a certain responsibility to not simply allow undocumented to enter and then leave the country.

Why should it be their responsibility to restrict the flow of undocumented out of the EU?

flatty

I'm, unfortunately for now a UK based taxpayer (hopefully not for much longer)
As a UK based taxpayer however, what macron is suggesting sounds eminently fair and sensible, unless I'm missing something.

murphaph

lawred2 wrote: »

Why should it be their responsibility to restrict the flow of undocumented out of the EU?

It is their responsibility to check passengers departing the Schengen zone and record their departure but France has no obligation to go beyond that.

They've just been helping the UK out with the current arrangements.

I presume however that the safety of ships at sea and of channel tunnel trains is still paramount and allowing illegal migrants uncontrolled access to both poses distinct safety risks I would have thought.

Leroy42

lawred2 wrote: »

Why should it be their responsibility to restrict the flow of undocumented out of the EU?

murphaph wrote: »

It is their responsibility to check passengers departing the Schengen zone and record their departure but France has no obligation to go beyond that.

They've just been helping the UK out with the current arrangements.

I presume however that the safety of ships at sea and of channel tunnel trains is still paramount and allowing illegal migrants uncontrolled access to both poses distinct safety risks I would have thought.

I just thought it might have been, I don't know, but based on the fact that it is the airlines job to check passengers before departing etc.

I know this issue was brought up around the time and it was passed off pretty quickly. If, as has been pointed out, France has no responsibility, why is Macron even appearing to be willing to continue on with this? Surely it would help him to rid Calais of this issue (I am talking politically not morally here).

lawred2

flatty wrote: »

I'm, unfortunately for now a UK based taxpayer (hopefully not for much longer)
As a UK based taxpayer however, what macron is suggesting sounds eminently fair and sensible, unless I'm missing something.

Jingoism

mickoneill31

Leroy42 wrote: »

I just thought it might have been, I don't know, but based on the fact that it is the airlines job to check passengers before departing etc.

If you get turned around at your arrival airport the airline that took you in has to take you back.

flaneur

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The lovely bit for the UK is that they simply don't have enough land for existing queues. White cliffs of Dover and all that.

https://www.dfdsseaways.co.uk/customer-service/dover-dunkirk/dover-travel-disruptionAnd when that's full - If junction 8 to junction 11 reaches capacity, Highways England will use Manston airfield to park Port of Dover freight.


Same in Wales except the volume of traffic is now much higher than the last time there were controls. And land ain't cheap in Dublin Port (it's all artificial) or Dun Laoghaire.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-41497922


For stuff that's not time critical there's this
https://afloat.ie/port-news/dublin-port/item/37536-world-s-largest-ro-ro-ferry-to-be-introduced-on-dublin-routes-linking-mainland-europe

But for time critical stuff like fresh food shipping via the UK is the preferred route, unless the ports get log jammed ,in which case everyone looses as the product isn't worth as much.
https://www.politico.eu/article/cargo-food-production-producers-brexit-burns-irelands-british-bridge-to-eu-markets/

It's only 12 to 14 hours from Cork to Rosscoff. We just need to improve the ro-ro facilities on the south coast and in Roscoff and/or Brest

Cherbourg is actually way too far east for Irish traffic.

A small fleet of decent ships and that's sorted.

First Up

flaneur wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The lovely bit for the UK is that they simply don't have enough land for existing queues. White cliffs of Dover and all that.

https://www.dfdsseaways.co.uk/customer-service/dover-dunkirk/dover-travel-disruptionAnd when that's full - If junction 8 to junction 11 reaches capacity, Highways England will use Manston airfield to park Port of Dover freight.


Same in Wales except the volume of traffic is now much higher than the last time there were controls. And land ain't cheap in Dublin Port (it's all artificial) or Dun Laoghaire.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-41497922


For stuff that's not time critical there's this
https://afloat.ie/port-news/dublin-port/item/37536-world-s-largest-ro-ro-ferry-to-be-introduced-on-dublin-routes-linking-mainland-europe

But for time critical stuff like fresh food shipping via the UK is the preferred route, unless the ports get log jammed ,in which case everyone looses as the product isn't worth as much.
https://www.politico.eu/article/cargo-food-production-producers-brexit-burns-irelands-british-bridge-to-eu-markets/

It's only 12 to 14 hours from Cork to Rosscoff. We just need to improve the ro-ro facilities on the south coast and in Roscoff and/or L'Harve.

Cherbourg is actually way too far east for Irish traffic.

Le Havre is further east than Cherbourg.

mickmac76

If we end up with a hard border in Ireland due to Brexit would the EU be willing to or required to help us pay for some of the costs of additional border posts between us and the North? After all we got rid of them due to the single market and couldn't foresee ever needing them again and they will be required to protect the integrity of the EU single market if the UK crashes out without a deal. Also could EU funds be requested to improve our ports if additional checking is required for goods coming from or going to the UK?