Brexit discussion thread IV

First Up

listermint wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Yes but that's a different solution to sealing containers for transit through the UK.

Obviously.it has to be.

We won't get priority over there over UK bound freight.

We need to accept that. Why would they give us priority. They'll be in the attack at that point

Yes, obviously. That's what makes it hard to see the point of sealed containers as referenced in the Guardian article.

prawnsambo

First Up wrote: »

The EU won't be "re-directing" traffic but it will be (and already is) helping to increase direct links between Ireland and the continent.

Well they will be. Akthough they actually call it a re-alignment. It's a brexit bypass basically.

Capt'n Midnight

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Two contrasting stories on the Border tonight - the Guardian take suggests goods coming from the Continent to Ireland would be checked and sealed in Calais before their passage through UK ports:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/06/ireland-hopes-side-deal-with-eu-could-allow-it-friction-free-trade-across-border

"suggests goods" ... "would be sealed"

WTF ?

It's not a suggestion it's what used to happen every bloody day of the week before the Common Market. I can remember trucks driving around here with blue TIR signs on them.

http://www.acci.org.af/services/tir.html

In 1949, shortly after World War II, the first TIR Agreement was concluded between a small number of European countries (Belgium, Denmark, France, The Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom).

And the Guardian is one of the better UK papers.

prawnsambo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

"suggests goods" ... "would be sealed"

WTF ?

It's not a suggestion it's what used to happen every bloody day of the week before the Common Market. I can remember trucks driving around here with blue TIR signs on them.

http://www.acci.org.af/services/tir.html

And the Guardian is one of the better UK papers.

Yeah, customs seals were a 'thing' back then. Bonded warehouses also. Suspect we'll see some more of them springing up too. But it's one big pain in the ass. The last thinig we need is our containers crawling through two sets of customs posts with the obligatory traffic jams, lack of customs officers and general mayhem. Shipping it through to Rotterdam or Zeebrugge will be quicker. And cheaper.

trellheim

We discussed up-thread about how the primary route through the UK will have to shift to Dublin/Rotterdam/Zeebrugge already

Capt'n Midnight

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah, customs seals were a 'thing' back then. Bonded warehouses also. Suspect we'll see some more of them springing up too. But it's one big pain in the ass. The last thinig we need is our containers crawling through two sets of customs posts with the obligatory traffic jams, lack of customs officers and general mayhem. Shipping it through to Rotterdam or Zeebrugge will be quicker. And cheaper.

Like I've posted before half of the ferry traffic here is unescorted. The next driver picks it up at the next port. This saves all the passport checks. And the trailer or container is sealed so no customs checks apart from a random few %.

So it won't be all that slower than at present, apart from the endless queues and trucks stacked alongside the motorway.

Thanks for reminding me, lots of warehouses in the UK but they'll need lots more.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45210148

About 235 million sq ft of warehouse space was leased or purchased between 2007 and March 2018 - equivalent to more than 3,000 Wembley Stadiums.

That figure is up from about 130 million sq ft in the previous decade.

About 60% of the space is now used by retailers, according to CBRE.

Ten years ago, retailers accounted for about a third of the space.

prawnsambo

trellheim wrote: »

We discussed up-thread about how the primary route through the UK will have to shift to Dublin/Rotterdam/Zeebrugge already

Yeah. First Up apparently hadn't read it.

But it still begs the question as to what the Revenue official was talking about. Surely they know about this. And British ports will be absolutely FUBAR. Like they're preparing for 15 miles of freight tailbacks to Dover. That's over a thousand artics.

Awesomeness

Another big thing in the Raab video earlier was how many people on that council just seemed to believe that the border was a non-issue. Staggering

Imreoir2

Awesomeness wrote: »

Another big thing in the Raab video earlier was how many people on that council just seemed to believe that the border was a non-issue. Staggering

Where is the electoral advantage to admiting that you have made a huge mistake when you can easily pretend you have not and then blame everyone else when it goes tits up?

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah, customs seals were a 'thing' back then. Bonded warehouses also. Suspect we'll see some more of them springing up too. But it's one big pain in the ass. The last thinig we need is our containers crawling through two sets of customs posts with the obligatory traffic jams, lack of customs officers and general mayhem. Shipping it through to Rotterdam or Zeebrugge will be quicker. And cheaper.

But we don't have to pick one or the other. And there'd be capacity constraints and bottlenecks on both routes, so we are best off having both options. Traders can then choose whichever route will be cheapest/quickest/most certain at any time for their particular purpose.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

The EU won't be "re-directing" traffic but it will be (and already is) helping to increase direct links between Ireland and the continent.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well they will be. Akthough they actually call it a re-alignment. It's a brexit bypass basically.

That's not a realignment or redirection of traffic. The EU has no power to tell drivers what route to take, or to tell traders what ships to put their containers on.

The document you link to refers to realignment of the corridor, not of the traffic. The proposal is for infrastructure investment and new administrative arrangements to upgrade the Irl-Bel/Nd route. Traffic will still be free to use whatever route it wishes, but the expectation is that there would be a shift in traffic from the UK landbridge, which will be less attractive than at present because of complications and delays consequent on Brexit, to the Irl-Bel/Nd route, which will be more attractive than at present because of the new investment/arranagements.

There may still be traders who are insensitive to delays and sensitive to cost from whom even the degraded UK landbridge will be the better option. They'll be free to make that decision and act accordingly.

Peregrinus

listermint wrote: »

Obviously.it has to be.

We won't get priority over there over UK bound freight.

We need to accept that. Why would they give us priority. They'll be in the attack at that point

Actually, it would be rational for them to establish a fast-track for through traffic to Ireland. Making consignments that don't require inspection join the queue for inspection just makes the queues longer, both physically and in terms of time. The UK ports are better off if they can clear out the through traffic as quickly as possible. So it would be rational and pragmatic for them to do this.

Having said that, there has been little of rationality or pragmatism in the UK's approach to Brexit so far, so we can't assume that they will be rational or pragmatic on this point. But I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility that they might be.

Peregrinus

Spook_ie wrote: »

Does that age correlation attach itself to things like the 1978/79 Winter Strikes, I would have been in my early twenties then and my father ( up until then a staunch labour supporter ) never voted labour again, and likewise I have never and will never vote labour since then.

It may do. But if so that's a huge problem for the Tories; anyone who was old enought to be politically aware in the late 1970s is now pushing 60 at least, and this is a declining cohort of the electorate. The majority of the electorate is already composed of people for whom the late 1970s is ancient history, and this majority is growing rapidly.

We have a similar phenomenon in Ireland, where the cohort of people who will never contemplate voting Sinn Fein because of events that they themselves remember is shrinking.

Spook_ie

Peregrinus wrote: »

It may do. But if so that's a huge problem for the Tories; anyone who was old enought to be politically aware in the late 1970s is now pushing 60 at least, and this is a declining cohort of the electorate. The majority of the electorate is already composed of people for whom the late 1970s is ancient history, and this majority is growing rapidly.

We have a similar phenomenon in Ireland, where the cohort of people who will never contemplate voting Sinn Fein because of events that they themselves remember is shrinking.

I'd say it's actually growing rather than declining, people are living longer and remembering longer, that's one of the reasons we are heading for a pensions crisis because of more over 60's needing support.

Peregrinus

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'd say it's actually growing rather than declining, people are living longer and remembering longer, that's one of the reasons we are heading for a pensions crisis because of more over 60's needing support.

No. The proportion of the population over 60 is growing, right enough. But what we're actually interested in is the proportion of the population whose political consciousness was formed by the events of the late 70s. Right now that corresponds, more or less, to the over-60s, but in five years time it will correspond to the over-65s, in ten years time to the over-70s, and so on. This is a declining group. Demographic trends can never change that; at most, they can affect how fast it declines.

And, even there, demographic trends are not helping the Tories. After decades of continual increases, life expectancy in the UK has stalled in the past 10 years, and has just now started to decline. The older are getting sicker.

Why? Austerity, basically, is what most observers think. So the Tories may face a double-problem; not only is the group with the most rusted-on Tory loyalty declining in numbers, but they are also suffering badly from circumstances and policies for which the Tories are widely held responsible, which means their Tory loyalty may be tested in ways that it hasn't been before.

These are certainly issues that the Tories are thinking about, if not necessarily in public. When May goes expect the next Tory leader to attempt to reposition the party to appeal to younger people, and the economically-struggling who feel excluded from a middle-class lifestyle. Relying on memories of the traumatic seventies has worked well for a long time in shoring up the Tory base, but as a strategy it has pretty well reached the end of its shelf-life

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

listermint wrote: »

Obviously.it has to be.

We won't get priority over there over UK bound freight.

We need to accept that. Why would they give us priority. They'll be in the attack at that point

Actually, it would be rational for them to establish a fast-track for through traffic to Ireland. Making consignments that don't require inspection join the queue for inspection just makes the queues longer, both physically and in terms of time. The UK ports are better off if they can clear out the through traffic as quickly as possible. So it would be rational and pragmatic for them to do this.

Having said that, there has been little of rationality or pragmatism in the UK's approach to Brexit so far, so we can't assume that they will be rational or pragmatic on this point. But I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility that they might be.

It would but they are critically short of space for both inbound and outbound trucks. No UK government could take the political heat over a fast track for transit traffic while UK importers and exporters see their JIT consignments stuck in long queues.

First Up

prawnsambo wrote: »

trellheim wrote: »

We discussed up-thread about how the primary route through the UK will have to shift to Dublin/Rotterdam/Zeebrugge already

Yeah. First Up apparently hadn't read it.

What gave you that idea? I've been contributing on the logistical challenges and options since the Brexit vote.

The point (as others have made) is that traders and transporters will choose the routes that make the most sense to them. They won't be "directed" to do anything.

Their choices will be based on a combination of cost, speed and especially certainty. Until the UK's trade terms with the EU are clear, the landbridge loses out heavily on the last of these and traders and transporters are already far advanced in their contingency plans.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

It would but they are critically short of space for both inbound and outbound trucks. No UK government could take the political heat over a fast track for transit traffic while UK importers and exporters see their JIT consignments stuck in long queues.

And equally no UK government could take the heat from UK importers and exporters who can see their goods stuck in queues that are, as a matter of policy, being made longer and slower than they need to be. Plus the anger of UK hauliers handling through traffic who see their trucks tied up in queues that they don't need to be in.

This is the dilemma of Brexit; every option facing the UK government is shiite, and the only way to avoid one pile of shiite is to dive into another. This is just a micro example of that macro problem.

I'm inclined to agree with you, at least for the short term. A fast-track system for through traffic will be highly visible, whereas the excess costs and delay caused by not having a fast-track system will be somewhat less visible, so they'll probably choose to dive into the somewhat less visible shiite in the first instance. But it won't be too long before public anger at queues in the ports gives way to public anger at empty supermarket shelves and production lines idle for want of supplies, and HMG will be sensitive to the political cost of persisting in a superficially populist stance which is making this anger worse.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

It would but they are critically short of space for both inbound and outbound trucks. No UK government could take the political heat over a fast track for transit traffic while UK importers and exporters see their JIT consignments stuck in long queues.

And equally no UK government could take the heat from UK importers and exporters who can see their goods stuck in queues that are, as a matter of policy, being made longer and slower than they need to be. Plus the anger of UK hauliers handling through traffic who see their trucks tied up in queues that they don't need to be in.

This is the dilemma of Brexit; every option facing the UK government is shiite, and the only way to avoid one pile of shiite is to dive into another. This is just a micro example of that macro problem.

I'm inclined to agree with you, at least for the short term. A fast-track system for through traffic will be highly visible, whereas the excess costs and delay caused by not having a fast-track system will be somewhat less visible, so they'll probably choose to dive into the somewhat less visible shiite in the first instance. But it won't be too long before public anger at queues in the ports gives way to public anger at empty supermarket shelves and production lines idle for want of supplies, and HMG will be sensitive to the political cost of persisting in a superficially populist stance which is making this anger worse.

Its just one of the things to watch when Brexit moves from red top headlines and ministers spoofing on TV to hard reality.
Some people are in for a few shocks alright.

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

And equally no UK government could take the heat from UK importers and exporters who can see their goods stuck in queues that are, as a matter of policy, being made longer and slower than they need to be. Plus the anger of UK hauliers handling through traffic who see their trucks tied up in queues that they don't need to be in

In principle it makes logical sense to remove TIR sealed loads transiting the UK from the queues at UK ports but I suppose these would only really be Irish consignments and as a percentage of the total number of vehicles this would surely be low single digit territory except at Irish sea ports. Building separate infrastructure to allow this small percentage of vehicles to whizz by in Dover might me more harmful (politically) to the government that implements it than just "letting the Paddies sit in the queue". It would go down very poorly with your average Mail or Express reader anyway!

What a mess.

Zubeneschamali

First Up wrote: »

It would but they are critically short of space for both inbound and outbound trucks.

Exactly - so it makes sense to sort the trucks.

Trucks requiring inspections will take time to deal with. Load a whole ferry with through traffic and empty trucks, and those will zip through, shortening the queues for trucks which really do have to be queued.

Peregrinus

A quick analysis of the different Brexits on offer (courtesy of Holger Hestermeyer, a legal academic from King’s College London):

The problem with Brexit is that there’s no agreement as to what problem Brexit is supposed to solve. Different people voted Leave because they hoped to solve different problems. Now the British government/parliament is tasked with deciding whose problem is going to be solved, and whose is not.

- If your objection to the EU is “ever closer union” and/or the euro, then the solution is a Brexit in which the UK joins the EEA, participates in the single market, forms a Customs Union with the EU.

- If your objection to the EU is that it’s fundamentally undemocratic, then you can’t support joining the EEA. You want a free trade agreement, nothing more. This is probably also where you end up if your objection to the EU is all them foreigners taking our jobs and our women.

- If your objection to the EU involves the word “sovereignty”, it’s impossible to say what kind of Brexit will suit you. Sovereignty is a sliding scale, and every single international agreement a country makes is simultaneously an exercise of its sovereignty and a (voluntary) limitation of that sovereignty. Until you can identify the degree of sovereignty that your regard as an irreducible minimum, you can’t frame a Brexit that will provide it.

- Finally what if what you want is for the UK to do better economically? There are three views here. The majority opinion is that you should favour no Brexit at all. There’s a minority opinion which holds that the way forward is to abolish all tariffs and deregulate unilaterally. The theory is that the UK will lose its agriculture and manufacturing industries more or less completely, but will sell lots of services and so (after a fairly rough transition) will be OK. This is quite a daring opinion. it implies no trade deal at all with the EU (or with anyone else). Finally, there’s an opinion that is basically held by one person that the way forward is lots of clever trade deals with as many countries as possible. The one person is Liam Fox and this view is not so much daring as insane.

Right. The reason the UK can’t agree on a Brexit is because there is no agreement on what Brexit is for. There never was. Any Brexit model you care to pick, it will piss off more Brexiters than it will please. The only course of action which has any hope of gaining majority support in the country is actually Remain, but the political obstacles in the way of delivering that are huge.

prawnsambo

First Up wrote: »

What gave you that idea? I've been contributing on the logistical challenges and options since the Brexit vote.

The point (as others have made) is that traders and transporters will choose the routes that make the most sense to them. They won't be "directed" to do anything.

Their choices will be based on a combination of cost, speed and especially certainty. Until the UK's trade terms with the EU are clear, the landbridge loses out heavily on the last of these and traders and transporters are already far advanced in their contingency plans.

In a lot of cases, it's the freight forwarders that make those decisions. A lot of freight out of Ireland is groupage containers. The routes that traffic use are entirely decided by the freight companies. I just don't see how it would be economically feasible to continue to use the landbridge when the potential for long delays are obvious. It may well come down to experience, but at least there is an alternative that avoids all that. The transit time by ship from Dublin to Zeebrugge is 48 hours. Wouldn't take much to make that the fastest one.

demfad

The EuroTunnel transports £120 billion of goods pa of 20 million metric tonnes weight. Any arrangement outside of the Customs Union/SM would neccessitate change to infrastructure. Nothing exists to remotely deal with a no deal situation.
Also, any changes after a transition period could take years to implement (infrastructure, technology).
Getlink (formerly Eurotunnel) is a private company operating on margins. If the tunnel ceases to become profitable will the Tories Nationalise it?

First Up

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Exactly - so it makes sense to sort the trucks.

Trucks requiring inspections will take time to deal with. Load a whole ferry with through traffic and empty trucks, and those will zip through, shortening the queues for trucks which really do have to be queued.

Logical but politically toxic in the poisonous atmosphere that inspired Brexit. There is no way UK ports will give preferential treatment to intra-EU trade while their own stuff is rotting at the ports.

Leroy42

First Up wrote: »

Logical but politically toxic in the poisonous atmosphere that inspired Brexit. There is no way UK ports will give preferential treatment to intra-EU trade while their own stuff is rotting at the ports.

ANd there really is no benefit to them doing so. If the amount of trucks is relatively small in total % terms then leaving them in the queus makes little real difference. Make them queue up with everyone else, the only difference being they can be waived straight through when they reach the top of the queue rather than being checked. The frustration will be on the Irish side, i.e. nothing for the UK to worry about.

If it is a large %, then removing them into a separate queue would make sense, but only to speed up the UK side of things.

trellheim

Getlink (formerly Eurotunnel) is a private company operating on margins. If the tunnel ceases to become profitable will the Tories Nationalise it?

It was effectively a state co for a long time

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

Right. The reason the UK can’t agree on a Brexit is because there is no agreement on what Brexit is for. There never was. Any Brexit model you care to pick, it will piss off more Brexiters than it will please. The only course of action which has any hope of gaining majority support in the country is actually Remain, but the political obstacles in the way of delivering that are huge.

OK. If the UK Gov cannot get parliament to agree on a deal and parliament does not want no deal then the current parliament would be stuck. There are only two options:

1. A GE: But this would would be fraught with danger and may even return Corbyn if he promised a referendum.
2. Extend article 50: Would require a commitment from UK re direction. and referendum on a deal

Roads seem to be leading to another referendum.

First Up

prawnsambo wrote: »

In a lot of cases, it's the freight forwarders that make those decisions. A lot of freight out of Ireland is groupage containers. The routes that traffic use are entirely decided by the freight companies. I just don't see how it would be economically feasible to continue to use the landbridge when the potential for long delays are obvious. It may well come down to experience, but at least there is an alternative that avoids all that. The transit time by ship from Dublin to Zeebrugge is 48 hours. Wouldn't take much to make that the fastest one.

Shorter than that to Cherbourg or even Cork to Santander. It depends on the final destination in the EU what works best.

The main downside to eliminating the landbridge is the stuff we get that is distributed from UK depots as well as part loads dropped off in the UK by trucks going on to the continent. Losing those cost efficiencies will be a headache and increase prices both ways but those distribution systems can't operate if the UK is outside the SM.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

ANd there really is no benefit to them doing so. If the amount of trucks is relatively small in total % terms then leaving them in the queus makes little real difference. Make them queue up with everyone else, the only difference being they can be waived straight through when they reach the top of the queue rather than being checked. The frustration will be on the Irish side, i.e. nothing for the UK to worry about.

If it is a large %, then removing them into a separate queue would make sense, but only to speed up the UK side of things.

It is a tiny fraction of the total traffic; not worth setting up a separate system for, especially when space is at a premium.