Brexit Discussion Thread VI

sandbelter

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

There's no requirement under WTO rules to maintain a hard border between countries. If you think there is then please cite one.
Tariffs can be dealt with separately. If Ireland and the UK are able to control VAT between the two countries then they can control tariffs. Goods can be inspected on loading, unloading or before either of these happen.

If I had a week I could Index them for you as the whole premise of GATT WTO is the recognition of borders and customs. But I do have a life!

This just the preface to technical page just from the WTO covering import licencing.

"Import licensing can be defined as administrative procedures requiring the submission of an application or other documentation (other than those required for customs purposes) to the relevant administrative body as a prior condition for importation of goods."...see customs....premise being a border between two custom zone.

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/implic_e/implic_info_e.htm

i just to remind you that WTO and GATT only deal in a "hard border".....which to everyone else on the planet is simply "the border".

Here is Trade Facilitation...again more of those words "customs" and "border".

https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/brief_tradefa_e.htm.

Google the Vaalimaa (Finnish/Russian) border crossing and have a look to get an idea on what could be coming. Finland is a CU and EU member and Russia (and soon to be the UK) is neither.

Strazdas

Infini wrote: »

It's this kind of idiocy from the UK that's going to be the end of them ultimately at this rate. A number of things I can see from all this is that if there's a Hard Brexit there's going to be riot's and serious violence once things go south. They ultimately towards coming up to that cliff edge are going to be forced to confront a cold hard truth and decide either to give in and accept May's deal or if it's still too unpalatable at that point cancel A50 and deal with the political fallout. If they fail to do either and go off the cliff it's likely within a few month's the country will be on it's knees economically.

Scotland is likely going to agitate rather forcefully for an independence referendum after all this as likely any trust in Westminster at this point will be destroyed and likely the scot's will want out to rejoin the EU as an independent republic.

As for Northern Ireland there's going to be serious local opposition up there noone want's the border back there though likely in the short to medium term there's likely to be a restriction or block on commercial vehicles and not people. Medium term its likely that either Westminster will be forced to agree to a deal including the current WA or holding a border poll to decide the future of the province and it will be very likely reunification will happen in all of this at least going by the border polls and the DUP can honestly shut up and like it IMO because this wouldn't have happened if they hadn't acted so stupid in all of this and pursued ideology before fact based policies.

They are definitely playing with fire here. At a minimum, they risk breaking up the UK and yet (unbelievably) they seem to think this would a price well worth paying in order to get their Brexit.

downcow

Itssoeasy wrote: »

What has the Sinn Fein abstentionist in London have to do with the assembly in Belfast ? Nothing I think you'll find.

I was answering a point where dup were being blamed for not representing the remain position in Westminster

downcow

fash wrote: »

If there is a way of ensuring no hard border which doesn't involve legal alignment between NI and Ireland, then why don't you support the backstop?
With the backstop in place, all you have to do is show that your solution works - even if the EU were negotiating in bad faith you can just show this wonderful plan to the independent arbitration panel - who assuming you aren't talking nonsense will agree with you that the "unless and until" provision had been met and voila, no need for further alignment.

The only reason you could be against the backstop and think there is another way of avoiding a hard border is if you believe/know that there is no other way.

I think many posters here have explained that it is about losing all negotiating power.

fash

downcow wrote: »

I think many posters here have explained that it is about losing all negotiating power.

Actually having the back stop massively increases the UK's negotiating power. Otherwise the UK has a transition period with a ticking clock, and a no deal crash out if it fails to agree "agree to this now or crash out to no deal". With the backstop, the UK Is provided with a safety net with generous terms (terms which some EU MSs were aghast/have misgivings about how generous they were).
Thus for anyone except a brexiter jihadist, the current backstop is a pretty sweet deal for the UK.
Furthermore, clearly the Brexiters intention (as can be seen currently) was to broadly agree a trade deal, not agree anything about NI- then try to railroad the EU into throwing Ireland under a bus. I'm sure you can agree that preventing a hard border in NI is much too important to be used for that.

Nody

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

As for the border checks, no, you don't. The WTO has no such rule. Prove me wrong, quote the rule in WTO documentation.

From WTO's own webpage:

Why ‘most-favoured’?

This sounds like a contradiction. It suggests special treatment, but in the WTO it actually means non-discrimination — treating virtually everyone equally.

This is what happens. Each member treats all the other members equally as “most-favoured” trading partners. If a country improves the benefits that it gives to one trading partner, it has to give the same “best” treatment to all the other WTO members so that they all remain “most-favoured”.

Most-favoured nation (MFN) status did not always mean equal treatment. The first bilateral MFN treaties set up exclusive clubs among a country’s “most-favoured” trading partners. Under GATT and now the WTO, the MFN club is no longer exclusive. The MFN principle ensures that each country treats its over—140 fellow-members equally.

If goods coming in from Ireland are treated in a special way by the definition all other goods coming in from all other countries have to be treated accordingly (excl. FTA etc.).

Or if you want the exact legal text from the GATT agreement:

1. With respect to customs duties and charges of any kind imposed on or in connection with importation or exportation or imposed on the international transfer of payments for imports or exports, and with respect to the method of levying such duties and charges, and with respect to all rules and formalities in connection with importation and exportation, and with respect to all matters referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article III,* any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted by any contracting party to any product originating in or destined for any other country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like product originating in or destined for the territories of all other contracting parties.

Now; can you bother to actually come up with a counter argument that now having full goods control at the Irish border is somehow allowed when the WTO rules clearly state any and all procedures have to be the same for all countries?

Zubeneschamali

downcow wrote: »

I think many posters here have explained that it is about losing all negotiating power.

The WA negotiations are over, you can stop bluffing now.

lawred2

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

All countries have borders and most have trade agreements through the WTO if nothing else. But if you think that Canada and the USA, for example, check every shipment on their near 9000 km border to see if it complies with the NAFTA agreement then you're deluded. The same with Russia and Kazakhstan and their near 7000 km border.

May is not suggesting having no border because there is no border, but trans-border shipments do not need to be checked at the border and countries accept that practically smuggling is going to happen.

Have you ever crossed the Canada US border?

Unlikely based on above

But here's Wikipedia for you

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canada–United_States_border_crossings

Only 6 remaining unmanned crossings. And not exactly highways for trucks.

Christy42

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

On a hard Brexit will the UK follow WTO rules?

If yes and it does not impose a hard border in Northern Ireland it will in effect be giving the EU 0% tariffs on all goods. Thus by WTO rules it must give everyone 0% tariffs on everything.

If not then no one will bother reciprocating WTO rules and will charge whatever tariffs they like.

I really, really don't give a **** about the UK talking about not putting up a hard border when they refuse to put forward what they are doing in that case. Like the nonsense about the backstop while refusing to ever put forward another option that doesn't result in a hard border.

The UK is lying when it says it won't impose a hard border (as is Leo by the way). It has to put one up. There seems to be a weird game of not admitting it going on. The UK is making decisions that will make both sides put up a hard border.

(And yes the WTO will object because every country will want 0% tariffs into the UK without needing a trade deal).

There's no requirement under WTO rules to maintain a hard border between countries. If you think there is then please cite one.
Tariffs can be dealt with separately. If Ireland and the UK are able to control VAT between the two countries then they can control tariffs. Goods can be inspected on loading, unloading or before either of these happen.

I did not say there was one anywhere in my post.

Most favoured nation says that the UK will have to give the same tariffs to everyone. If there are no tariffs being charged on the NI border they will be charging 0% tariffs to the EU. Thus everyone will have to be charged 0%. You can't deal with tariffs separately. There are two months left with no plan. If you don't have the tariffs agreed by then this is what happens.

Is your final suggestion really to have checks at every store on the Island? That is not realistic and won't be used for tariffs due to sheer amount of places goods could be unloaded.

downcow

fash wrote: »

Actually having the back stop massively increases the UK's negotiating power. Otherwise the UK has a transition period with a ticking clock, and a no deal crash out if it fails to agree "agree to this now or crash out to no deal". With the backstop, the UK Is provided with a safety net with generous terms (terms which some EU MSs were aghast/have misgivings about how generous they were).
Thus for anyone except a brexiter jihadist, the current backstop is a pretty sweet deal for the UK.
Furthermore, clearly the Brexiters intention (as can be seen currently) was to broadly agree a trade deal, not agree anything about NI- then try to railroad the EU into throwing Ireland under a bus. I'm sure you can agree that preventing a hard border in NI is much too important to be used for that.

Much too important to be misused to manipulate negotiations

downcow

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The WA negotiations are over, you can stop bluffing now.

I thought we had that discussion and everyone agreed negotiations would be inevitable if there is no deal.

fash

downcow wrote: »

Much too important to be misused to manipulate negotiations

The only reason for the parties not to permanently put it now is to manipulate it for negotiations of the future agreement. For any person of either side who is concerned about a hard border (including a person from the UK concerned that the EU would use the negotiations to threaten to force a hard border on the UK against its professed claims not to want one), that is clearly a good thing.
Only someone whose intention is to threaten the imposition of a hard border to get economic concessions would not agree to the backstop.

downcow

fash wrote: »

The only reason for the parties not to permanently put it now is to manipulate it for negotiations of the future agreement. For any person of either side who is concerned about a hard border (including a person from the UK concerned that the EU would use the negotiations to threaten to force a hard border on the UK against its professed claims not to want one), that is clearly a good thing.
Only someone whose intention is to threaten the imposition of a hard border to get economic concessions would not agree to the backstop.

You are shooting yourself in the foot and damaging the rest of us at the same time with you uncompromising position on backstop.
If there was no backstop or even a time limited one then we can move ahead with a much softer brexit and we can continue to develop mutually beneficial arrangements going forward. But of course either partner can withdraw at any time - unlikely to happen but a healthy position.
Permanent backstop locks UK into arrangements for all time or else they jettison NI Can you not see how unreasonable this is. It is ireland who is going to crash this and hurt everyone out of sheer bloody mindedness

Zubeneschamali

downcow wrote: »

It is ireland who is going to crash this and hurt everyone out of sheer bloody mindedness

If we let you crash out rather than accept a WA without the backstop, your leverage is worthless. Why would we accept a future trade deal without a backstop if we demonstrate that we prefer No Deal now?


Your bluff is called. Cancel Brexit, sign May's deal including the backstop, or leave with No Deal.

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

I thought we had that discussion and everyone agreed negotiations would be inevitable if there is no deal.

Negotiations would be inevitable for what exactly?

Ultimately there will be a trade deal negotiated but the idea of the WA was to have a transition period while the trade negotiations happened. With no deal there is no WA, do you honeslty not understand this yet?

dr.fuzzenstein

downcow wrote: »

Much too important to be misused to manipulate negotiations

And yet here we are. Your point being?

Blowfish

downcow wrote: »

You are shooting yourself in the foot and damaging the rest of us at the same time with you uncompromising position on backstop.
If there was no backstop or even a time limited one then we can move ahead with a much softer brexit and we can continue to develop mutually beneficial arrangements going forward. But of course either partner can withdraw at any time - unlikely to happen but a healthy position.

If you are looking for a much softer brexit than that which involves the backstop, then why not just agree the backstop as it won't ever be implemented?

Calina

downcow wrote: »

I thought we had that discussion and everyone agreed negotiations would be inevitable if there is no deal.

No we did not.

We pointed out that the withdrawal agreement would be moot and you would not be reopening discussions as that as Brexit would have happened. With or without Parliament's say. Brexit happens on 29 March by default.

Amy subsequent negotiations would be the UK desperately trying to get out of the mess it is in and or for formal long term trading arrangements.

The withdrawal agreement is not a trade agreement. It is the orderly wind down of UK membership. If you cannot tell the difference you really have a metric tonne to learn.

downcow

downcow wrote: »

You are shooting yourself in the foot and damaging the rest of us at the same time with you uncompromising position on backstop.

..

It is ireland who is going to crash this and hurt everyone out of sheer bloody mindedness

Do you really think you're going to convince anyone of this when it is the UK that's leaving and breaking agreements?

Your posts continue to lack any substance or strong logic. The bias you have basically overwhelms every attempt you make at working this stuff out, and while it genuinely warms my heart that people like yourself exist, I just hope there aren't too many of ye.

fash

downcow wrote: »

You are shooting yourself in the foot and damaging the rest of us at the same time with you uncompromising position on backstop.

I don't think so- I expect that if the UK doesn't accept the backstop, there will be a crash out which the UK is not prepared for any will knock 10-15% off its economy (at a time where the world anyway looks about to enter a recession -so add that on top) - which is likely to shake up UK parliamentary make up - and since no-one really cares about NI being on a different customs zone (aside from the DUP), that will quickly be sacrificed. We'll see how it goes I suppose. It would be a less preferable option - clearly - but better than the alternative.
Let's also not forget that the HOC voted against the Baron proposed amendment by a majority of nearly 600.

downcow wrote: »

If there was no backstop or even a time limited one then we can move ahead with a much softer brexit and we can continue to develop mutually beneficial arrangements going forward. But of course either partner can withdraw at any time - unlikely to happen but a healthy position.
Permanent backstop locks UK into arrangements for all time or else they jettison NI Can you not see how unreasonable this is. It is ireland who is going to crash this and hurt everyone out of sheer bloody mindedness

Considering that imposing a hard border is in breach of its international obligations, the UK can similarly just as simply breach its international obligations by breaching the WA and whatever treaties end up being in place between the EU and the UK if it wanted.
Threatening to do so is not a healthy situation however- it is the actions of a rogue state.

The backstop doesn't lock the UK or NI into anything - don't forget the Brexiters have wonderful plans and technology that will obviate the need for regulatory alignment. Even if the EU were negotiating in bad faith, the moment they show those plans and technology to the independent dispute resolution forum, the backstop ends.
If however you disbelieve the Brexiters and believe that any other solution other than regulatory alignment will mean a hard border, then you must inevitably agree with the backstop.

Otherwise all you are saying is that you support the imposition of a hard border - in which case you should just say so.

Seth Brundle

Strazdas wrote: »

This would presumably be the first point since June 23rd, 2016 where they admit they've messed up.

That will never ever happen!

downcow wrote: »

I thought we had that discussion and everyone agreed negotiations would be inevitable if there is no deal.

There may be negotiations for a new UK/EU trade agreement; one where the UK is at a complete disadvantage. Unresolved issues, if any, may be brought to the table e.g. if UK fails to pay divorce payments or fails to ensure integrity of GfA

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

You are shooting yourself in the foot and damaging the rest of us at the same time with you uncompromising position on backstop.
If there was no backstop or even a time limited one then we can move ahead with a much softer brexit and we can continue to develop mutually beneficial arrangements going forward. But of course either partner can withdraw at any time - unlikely to happen but a healthy position.
Permanent backstop locks UK into arrangements for all time or else they jettison NI Can you not see how unreasonable this is. It is ireland who is going to crash this and hurt everyone out of sheer bloody mindedness

This has been explained several times to you and yet you continue to suggest the stupid idea of a time based backstop. This has been dismissed for the blatantly obvious reason that it is not a backstop if it is time based.
It is not the responsibility of the EU to choose how the UK leaves the union. We have offered a better than default option via the WA. The UK PM and negotiators are happy with that avenue. The extreme Brexiteers such as the ERG and the DUP arent. The UK has put themselves in a position where they refuse to compromise, not the EU.

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

if UK fails to pay divorce payments or fails to ensure integrity of GfA

Even if the UK crashes out, could they go as far as to not pay what they owe?

It would be insanity really and would set the stage for a royally screwed UK for at least 20-30 years.

Seth Brundle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Even if the UK crashes out, could they go as far as to not pay what they owe?

It would be insanity really and would set the stage for a royally screwed UK for at least 20-30 years.

Whilst it would be monumentally stupid of them to not pay, it wouldn't be the first monumentally stupid thing the UK have done in recent years!

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Even if the UK crashes out, could they go as far as to not pay what they owe?

It would be insanity really and would set the stage for a royally screwed UK for at least 20-30 years.

I believe so, yes.

However, it would undermine their reputation abroad which they're going to need when negotiating deals. That's not something which needs to be made more difficult and the "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" comments don't help either.

VinLieger

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Even if the UK crashes out, could they go as far as to not pay what they owe?

It would be insanity really and would set the stage for a royally screwed UK for at least 20-30 years.

They could but good luck to them when they come knocking for an EU trade deal and the unpaid bill not being the first thing to be discussed.

Leroy42

Downcow, you keep saying that the backstop is the problem, even going as far as saying that it is all Ireland's fault.

So what is your alternative option that the EU should consider?

fash

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Even if the UK crashes out, could they go as far as to not pay what they owe?

It would be insanity really and would set the stage for a royally screwed UK for at least 20-30 years.

It would be very hard for anyone else to agree anything with the UK because there would be unresolved issues between the UK and the EU to be resolved. - including the NI border which requires regulatory alignment.
Aside from the fact that the UK-EU trade is the largest flow and so would have to take priority as a deal, if another state agreed something before the UK-EU stuff was resolved, they wouldn't know how that UK-EU final deal will impact on their deal.
So difficult to see how they could get any meaningful deals before first agreeing to the WA principles - even if there were a no deal.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Downcow, you keep saying that the backstop is the problem, even going as far as saying that it is all Ireland's fault.

So what is your alternative option that the EU should consider?

It's important to note that 2% of Ireland's exports cross the border whereas 25% of NI's exports cross the border.

FrancieBrady

I think anyone who identifies as Irish in northern Ireland should read and be very concerned about this. I am amazed that this hasn't come into focus more and also amazed that the British were allowed to sit on their hands.

http://eamonnmallie.com/2019/01/how-brexit-is-going-to-expose-the-failure-to-implement-irish-citizenship-provisions-of-the-gfa-by-daniel-holder/?fbclid=IwAR09aKLwZETbur25zhGV89kh2IqcbQ-g7HO2Z5Iy4NLjChnPxoschl99yBQ

It would be hardly compatible with the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) – where the UK and Ireland explicitly recognised the birthright of those born in Northern Ireland to “identify” and be “accepted as” British or Irish (or both) – to then query the rights of Irish citizens to live here, and threaten eviction for non-registration with the UK immigration authorities.

If you get to the small print, the official Home Office line is that Irish citizens are, unlike other EU citizens, not ‘required’ to apply under the EU Settlement Scheme, but “may do so if they wish”. The whole issue has highlighted greater deficiencies, drawing attention to the UK’s failure to properly implement the citizenship provisions of the GFA, the new hardened citizenship boundaries Brexit will inevitably create, and the non-implementation of earlier UK-EU commitments on the EU rights of Irish citizens in NI.

The interaction of the ‘birthright’ provision with the rest of the GFA meant it was not intended to be just about people’s decision to have a British or Irish passport (or both), but rather, as the UK’s own Brexit documents state, the GFA was also supposed to provide for “equal treatment irrespective of their choice.”