Brexit discussion thread IV

Spook_ie

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not quite. The initial impact will be severe but, unlike the UK, we don't have to "fix Brexit" in order to do something about it. Capacity on the sea route may be limited, but it can be increased. Plus, there is already an internationally accepted mechanism for carrying goods in sealed containers through a third country without customs inspection either on entering or leaving the third country, and it's possible that some arrangement can be put in place whereby this can be used to leapfrog the 20-mile queues for customs clearance at Dover.

These are not ideal or cost-free solutions, but they are a lot better than the solutions that will be avaliable to UK-based traders.

Not going to leapfrog the queues though is it, unless they have a separate queue for TIR lorries. If it's number 100 in a queue then it's not gonna get past customs unchecked and onto a boat until it's number one in the queue

Leroy42

I see Hunt is out asking France and Germany to overrule the EU position to avoid No deal by accident.

1st off, I assume this is the new wording dreamed up with No 10 to start the process of shifting the blame.

There is no accident in No deal. UK had red lines and refused to shift them.

2nd, I find it strange that the likes of Boris, JRM etc etc continually claim that anything negative is simply project fear, yet here is Hunt claiming that a no deal will be bad for the EU and that they need to short position in order to avoid the chaos. What chaos? Surely the EU will simply deal with the UK on WTO rules so nothing will change? Isn't that the line? It would be funny if Macron simply told TM it was all project fear and nothing to worry about.

Finally, does anyone else see the irony in the UK asking the French and Germans to overrule the EU position for their own ends, whist at the same time spending years complaining the the French and Germans had too much control over the EU?

flatty

bilston wrote: »

It's hardly a surprise that people in England would drop Northern Ireland if they got the chance. Surely everyone knows that. Even Unionists in Northern Ireland know that. But here's the thing...the little Englanders from the Home Counties would drop everything north of Oxford if they had the chance.

That's a great post.

VinLieger

bilston wrote: »

It's hardly a surprise that people in England would drop Northern Ireland if they got the chance. Surely everyone knows that. Even Unionists in Northern Ireland know that. But here's the thing...the little Englanders from the Home Counties would drop everything north of Oxford if they had the chance.

The unionists is NI in their heart of hearts probably know that but they would never be able to admit it to themselves. They will still wake up every day to play act at being their weird own perverted versions of what they think english people are and fly their flegs with the childish desperate hope of getting a pat on the heard from England for being good little boys and girls.

Peregrinus

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not going to leapfrog the queues though is it, unless they have a separate queue for TIR lorries. If it's number 100 in a queue then it's not gonna get past customs unchecked and onto a boat until it's number one in the queue

Yes, but having a separate queue for lorries that don't need inspection makes a lot of sense, since it reduces the space needed for the queue for lorries that do need inspection.

Peregrinus

VinLieger wrote: »

The unionists is NI in their heart of hearts probably know that . . .

They do know that. That's why they are so insecure.

Spook_ie

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but having a separate queue for lorries that don't need inspection makes a lot of sense, since it reduces the space needed for the queue for lorries that do need inspection.

And the gain for the UK facilitating this would be what?

Peregrinus

Spook_ie wrote: »

And the gain for the UK facilitating this would be what?

Shorter queues taking up less roadspace. And some improvement in circumstances for UK hauliers engaged in TIR work.

(Assuming, of course, that aafter a crash-out Brexit UK hauliers can engage in TIR work.)

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not going to leapfrog the queues though is it, unless they have a separate queue for TIR lorries. If it's number 100 in a queue then it's not gonna get past customs unchecked and onto a boat until it's number one in the queue

Yes, but having a separate queue for lorries that don't need inspection makes a lot of sense, since it reduces the space needed for the queue for lorries that do need inspection.

So, take up two lanes of the M20 and M2?

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not going to leapfrog the queues though is it, unless they have a separate queue for TIR lorries. If it's number 100 in a queue then it's not gonna get past customs unchecked and onto a boat until it's number one in the queue

Yes, but having a separate queue for lorries that don't need inspection makes a lot of sense, since it reduces the space needed for the queue for lorries that do need inspection.

So, take up two lanes of the M20 and A2?

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

So, take up two lanes of the M20 and A2?

No. The point is that the lorries that don't need inspection can be processed quickly, so the "queue" for processing them takes up little or no space. It doesn't back up for 27 miles and probably doesn't involve the motorway at all. By according priority to the lorries that don't require inspection the total amount of roadspace required for queuing is reduced, and the total amount of driver time spent queuing is also reduced. More efficient. Less expensive. Reduces somewhat the costs of Brexit. From the UK side, it's all win.

Spook_ie

Peregrinus wrote: »

Shorter queues taking up less roadspace. And some improvement in circumstances for UK hauliers engaged in TIR work.

(Assuming, of course, that aafter a crash-out Brexit UK hauliers can engage in TIR work.)

Don't think TIR is an EU scheme, looks more like a UN thing
http://www.unece.org/tir/system/tir-system-countries.html

J Mysterio

Jennifer O'Connell taking the absolute piss in the Irish Times:

Keep calm and stockpile: An Irish parcel for Brexit Britain


'From Sudocrem to 7Up to Marian Keyes: the best of Ireland is going into our Bosca Brexit'

Water John

Goods can travel anywhere in the world on TIR, once the correct protocols are set up. Not sure do they need to go through bonded warehousing?

Hurrache

Leroy42 wrote: »

I see Hunt is out asking France and Germany to overrule the EU position to avoid No deal by accident.

Watched this on the newspaper review on Sky News last night, always a good watch to see Brexiteers take on things. Last night it was the political editor of the Sun, and he was saying that the intransigence is all down to the EU, and because of the hardline views that both Germany and France have on it, and the rest of the EU following because of them.

So he believes that May visiting both France and Germany is a good move. Because Barnier is French he said it was good for her to go see Macron, who is someone they believe can then lean on Barnier to change the EUs negotiating tact, and therefore Macron can get this sorted.

In the same conversation the Sun guy also said she's just being given the run around, so he was looking to spin anything in favour of Brexit and May. He also mentioned some survey, didn't say who or what, that said the French are in favour of a hard Brexit because they benefit because all the jobs and services will go to France, hence France pulling the strings behind the negotiations.

Peregrinus

Spook_ie wrote: »

Don't think TIR is an EU scheme, looks more like a UN thing
http://www.unece.org/tir/system/tir-system-countries.html

Doesn't need to be an EU scheme. In fact, not being an EU scheme is a positive advantge, since if it were it would presumably lapse in the UK in a crash-out Brexit.

Akrasia

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not quite. The initial impact will be severe but, unlike the UK, we don't have to "fix Brexit" in order to do something about it. Capacity on the sea route may be limited, but it can be increased. Plus, there is already an internationally accepted mechanism for carrying goods in sealed containers through a third country without customs inspection either on entering or leaving the third country, and it's possible that some arrangement can be put in place whereby this can be used to leapfrog the 20-mile queues for customs clearance at Dover.

These are not ideal or cost-free solutions, but they are a lot better than the solutions that will be avaliable to UK-based traders.

I'd say extra capacity on Ireland to France should be easy as the volume of trade between the UK and EU causes over supply in shipping vessels. We just need port capacity or new routes from Dublin port directly to the EU via the Irish sea (Dublin to Cherbourg takes 18 hours by ferry)

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

So, take up two lanes of the M20 and A2?

No. The point is that the lorries that don't need inspection can be processed quickly, so the "queue" for processing them takes up little or no space. It doesn't back up for 27 miles and probably doesn't involve the motorway at all. By according priority to the lorries that don't require inspection the total amount of roadspace required for queuing is reduced, and the total amount of driver time spent queuing is also reduced. More efficient. Less expensive. Reduces somewhat the costs of Brexit. From the UK side, it's all win.

They still have to get to the port.

Water John

Saw TDD on Sky Paper Review also. Tom is a clever man, don't think he believed what he was saying for a second.

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

I see Hunt is out asking France and Germany to overrule the EU position to avoid No deal by accident.

1st off, I assume this is the new wording dreamed up with No 10 to start the process of shifting the blame.

There is no accident in No deal. UK had red lines and refused to shift them.

2nd, I find it strange that the likes of Boris, JRM etc etc continually claim that anything negative is simply project fear, yet here is Hunt claiming that a no deal will be bad for the EU and that they need to short position in order to avoid the chaos. What chaos? Surely the EU will simply deal with the UK on WTO rules so nothing will change? Isn't that the line? It would be funny if Macron simply told TM it was all project fear and nothing to worry about.

Finally, does anyone else see the irony in the UK asking the French and Germans to overrule the EU position for their own ends, whist at the same time spending years complaining the the French and Germans had too much control over the EU?

They're desperate now. The final deal has to be unanimous. France or Germany couldn't overrule the EU position even if they wanted to because Ireland could veto anything that screw's us over, and so could any other EU member state

Hurrache

Water John wrote: »

Saw TDD on Sky Paper Review also. Tom is a clever man, don't think he believed what he was saying for a second.

No, it certainly appeared like he as just spinning everything rather than offering his opinion. Mentioning Varoufakis's book and the EU tactic of 'the runaround' that Varoufakis described let his veil slip as to the fact that he knew what the real facts were.

Water John

Spain certainly will play hardball over Gibralter. If UK are settling on the back foot, Gibralter is gone.

kunst nugget

Water John wrote: »

Saw TDD on Sky Paper Review also. Tom is a clever man, don't think he believed what he was saying for a second.

Sorry, for the ignorant here, who is TDD?

breatheme

Can't believe the UK still thinks the EU is just France and Germany.

Akrasia

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. The point is that the lorries that don't need inspection can be processed quickly, so the "queue" for processing them takes up little or no space. It doesn't back up for 27 miles and probably doesn't involve the motorway at all. By according priority to the lorries that don't require inspection the total amount of roadspace required for queuing is reduced, and the total amount of driver time spent queuing is also reduced. More efficient. Less expensive. Reduces somewhat the costs of Brexit. From the UK side, it's all win.

How big of a problem would the queue jumping shenanigans be on a queue like that though. I could see riots caused by trucks trying to filter into the queue a few miles further than they should, especially when livelihoods are at stake.

Water John

Tom Newton Dunne the Political Editor of The Sun. The guy who got the exclusive interview with Trump in Helsinki. The one that Trump then called Fake News to his face at the press conference.
Sorry for the shorthand.

kunst nugget

breatheme wrote: »

Can't believe the UK still thinks the EU is just France and Germany.

Pretty much a common misconception with people. Talking to someone at the weekend and he was saying that the EU will be gone in a couple of years because everyone will be sick of doing what France and Germany want them to do.

Water John

Nugget you weren't talking to Farage by any chance.
That the EU would be gone in a few years? Take that to the bookies and see what odds you'd get. Not a chance. If it runs into any trouble, the EU just reshapes.

Wanderer78

kunst nugget wrote:

Pretty much a common misconception with people. Talking to someone at the weekend and he was saying that the EU will be gone in a couple of years because everyone will be sick of doing what France and Germany want them to do.

Not far wrong really, are they, both countries are the true powerhouse of the EU, particularly economically and financially

Peregrinus

Hurrache wrote: »

Watched this on the newspaper review on Sky News last night, always a good watch to see Brexiteers take on things. Last night it was the political editor of the Sun, and he was saying that the intransigence is all down to the EU, and because of the hardline views that both Germany and France have on it, and the rest of the EU following because of them.

So he believes that May visiting both France and Germany is a good move. Because Barnier is French he said it was good for her to go see Macron, who someone they believe can then lean on Barnier to change the EUs negotiating tact, and therefore Macron can get this sorted.

In the same conversation the Sun guy also said she's just being given the run around, so he was looking to spin anything in favour of Brexit and May. He also mentioned some survey, didn't say who or what, that French are in favour of a hard Brexit because they benefit because all the jobs and services will go to France, hence France pulling the strings behind the negotiations.

In one way, Hunt's strategy of talking to France and Germany makes a certain kind of sense. Barnier isn't off on a frolic of his own; he's working within a negotiating mandate conferred by the Council of Ministers, and he's reporting back to the Council of Ministers. And the Council of Ministers is, of course, the national governments of the Member States. So if you want to change the tack that Barnier is taking you need to have his negotiating mandate changed, and to do that you need to persuade the national governments to change it. And France and Germany are influential national governments in this regard.

But, to be clear, the reason it make sense for Hunt do to this is not because he's likely to succeed in getting Barnier's riding instructions changed; it's because it's the only way in which he possibly can get Barnier's riding instructions changed. Actually succeeding in this is still a pretty long shot.

It's not true that France favours a hard Brexit, still less a crash-out Brexit. Yes, they offer certain opportunities which the French will be glad to take, but both are net negatives for France. You know all the fuss about 27-mile tailbacks at Dover? Well, that goes for Calais too. France's preference would be for no Brexit at all. Failing that, a very soft Brexit.

But France's dominant strategic interest here is not in its relationship with (or rivalry with) the UK; it's in its relationship with the rest of the EU. That's far more important to France than the UK is. And France has a strong strategic interest in the integrity and functionality of the single market. The UK's cherry-picking approach does not attract France, and it will be very hard to get them to support it.

France also sees the UK as very unreliable in relation to Brexit; they are amazed at how long it has taken the UK to produce its proposals; they note the firestorm those proposals have provoked on the home front; they question the stability and dependability of the UK government's position on Brexit. They are not going to expend political capital on supporting a UK position from which, they think, the UK itself may well move.

Bottom line: if the UK wants French support for its Brexit position, it needs to adopt a Brexit position which better aligns with France's strategic interests. And it needs to reassure the French that it is committed to that position.

I think all of this probably broadly goes for Germany as well.