Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

eire4

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yeah. The problem is that Portsmouth is still in England, which is not where the trucks want to be, so moving them 5-10 hours away from their continental destination is not a great solution. Look at your map again and see how quickly the coastline of southern England deviates from the coastline of France.

If you're going to add extra sailing time, as well as border clearance in the UK, you might as well take one of the new direct ferry routes.

The extra ferry sailings as well as the new route to Denmark I think are going to play a bigger and bigger role in getting our goods to the rest of the EU in coming years. The quicker and more we can decouple ourselves from needing any land routes through the UK the better. The new Danish service from Rosslare to Dunkirk is a good start. Moving towards increasing the shipping's from our ports onto the continent is the future and depending on what ports they only add roughly 5-10 hours onto the transit time from being able to use the old land bridge through the UK. Not perfect but very doable I would think.

declanflynn

eire4 wrote: »

The extra ferry sailings as well as the new route to Denmark I think are going to play a bigger and bigger role in getting our goods to the rest of the EU in coming years. The quicker and more we can decouple ourselves from needing any land routes through the UK the better. The new Danish service from Rosslare to Dunkirk is a good start. Moving towards increasing the shipping's from our ports onto the continent is the future and depending on what ports they only add roughly 5-10 hours onto the transit time from being able to use the old land bridge through the UK. Not perfect but very doable I would think.

Couldn't agree more, does shipping direct to the containent cost more than the land bridge

eire4

declanflynn wrote: »

Couldn't agree more, does shipping direct to the containent cost more than the land bridge

I do not know if there is a significant difference in cost of shipping using our points direct to continental ports rather then using the old land bridge through the UK. But in the articles I have read such as for example Tony Connelly's latest one there is no mention of any cost differential. I would have to think if there was a significant difference negatively if would have been mentioned as an obstacle to using our ports directly as a solution.

L1011

Autocorrect typo above, the new route is to Dunkirk.

The cost is likely similar - longer duty time for drivers (not driving time of course) versus no diesel used driving across the UK and a fare difference. The longer time is the main issue for time sensitive goods.

Strazdas

eire4 wrote: »

I do not know if there is a significant difference in cost of shipping using our points direct to continental ports rather then using the old land bridge through the UK. But in the articles I have read such as for example Tony Connelly's latest one there is no mention of any cost differential. I would have to think if there was a significant difference negatively if would have been mentioned as an obstacle to using our ports directly as a solution.

Does EU bound traffic need paperwork to cross Britain? That would be a huge disincentive.

timetogo1

Strazdas wrote: »

Does EU bound traffic need paperwork to cross Britain? That would be a huge disincentive.

Yes. Have a listen to the latest Brexit Republic podcast. They made the point that the new hassle with the landbridge is making the ferries more attractive. They mentioned that 4 apps will be needed for goods crossing Britain for the EU.

They also made the point that the landbridge comparisons (as of now) with ferries are not the same as comparisons after 1st Jan. There are likely to be several hours added on obviously then plus the red tape.

eire4

timetogo1 wrote: »

Yes. Have a listen to the latest Brexit Republic podcast. They made the point that the new hassle with the landbridge is making the ferries more attractive. They mentioned that 4 apps will be needed for goods crossing Britain for the EU.

They also made the point that the landbridge comparisons (as of now) with ferries are not the same as comparisons after 1st Jan. There are likely to be several hours added on obviously then plus the red tape.

Thats a good point about the extra time that would be needed using the land bridge now anyway which would lessen a bit the impact of the extra time using the ferries instead. All in all using the direct ferry routes and continuing to expand them seems to be the future for us.

declanflynn

eire4 wrote: »

I do not know if there is a significant difference in cost of shipping using our points direct to continental ports rather then using the old land bridge through the UK. But in the articles I have read such as for example Tony Connelly's latest one there is no mention of any cost differential. I would have to think if there was a significant difference negatively if would have been mentioned as an obstacle to using our ports directly as a solution.

would the direct routes by affected by bad weather more so than the landbridge route?

Strazdas

timetogo1 wrote: »

Yes. Have a listen to the latest Brexit Republic podcast. They made the point that the new hassle with the landbridge is making the ferries more attractive. They mentioned that 4 apps will be needed for goods crossing Britain for the EU.

They also made the point that the landbridge comparisons (as of now) with ferries are not the same as comparisons after 1st Jan. There are likely to be several hours added on obviously then plus the red tape.

'Hours' might even be optimistic. Some analysts think trucks could be waiting a day or more at Dover (or in Kent).

Capt'n Midnight

Strazdas wrote: »

Does EU bound traffic need paperwork to cross Britain? That would be a huge disincentive.

TIR means no customs checks or tariffs on the goods in transit.

Checks on the driver and permits for the truck are a different matter.

Thanks to the CTA a driver with a Irish passport should have the fastest screening time.

Drivers with both UK and EU passports should be OK too.

Drivers with EU or UK passport and rights to residence in the other are OK though I'm not sure what documents they'll need or how long checks would take.

And it goes downhill from there with checks on work visas and whatnot

dresden8

I can see Irish truck drivers getting grief in Britland. Every time French farmers or fishermen have a beef they will **** up British truckers or ferries. The French are nuts.

Fun times ahead.

eire4

declanflynn wrote: »

would the direct routes by affected by bad weather more so than the landbridge route?

It might a bit given trucks would be on the seas longer. But if the weather is that bad it is going to effect things in the UK as well. Again it is not something that is markedly making developing the Irish ports and increased direct ferry sailings with the likes of Cherbourg and Dunkirk any worse significantly.

prawnsambo

declanflynn wrote: »

would the direct routes by affected by bad weather more so than the landbridge route?

It's not all land on the landbridge. Two ferry crossings or one and a chunnel. If the weather's bad, it's bad for all of them. The Irish Sea is a fun place for choppy crossings.

declanflynn

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's not all land on the landbridge. Two ferry crossings or one and a chunnel. If the weather's bad, it's bad for all of them. The Irish Sea is a fun place for choppy crossings.

yeah I know there are 2 sea crossings, I just taut the sea on the direct route mite be rougher

Capt'n Midnight

declanflynn wrote: »

yeah I know there are 2 sea crossings, I just taut the sea on the direct route mite be rougher

Bigger boats these days. So not as big a problem as it used to be.

Ferry schedules usually mean there's another one nearby.

Geuze

Strazdas wrote: »

Does EU bound traffic need paperwork to cross Britain? That would be a huge disincentive.

Have a read:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1128/1180993-brexit-tony-connelly/

ExMachina1000

Geuze wrote: »

Have a read:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1128/1180993-brexit-tony-connelly/

"Dublin wanted to know if the flow of Irish goods through the UK to the continent could somehow remain frictionless. Could there be priority lanes for Irish vehicles heading to Dover?"

What planet are they on? Not a hope in hell.
The new proposed ferry route wasn't economically viable in the time before Brexit and it's still not economically viable now.

Also if the UK ban Irish meat products then it is solely because of the ban the EU is placing on the uk. They are justified in doing same. It's squarely on the EU if they do not amend the rule to compromise. Irish farmers and economy loses out.

View

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

"Dublin wanted to know if the flow of Irish goods through the UK to the continent could somehow remain frictionless. Could there be priority lanes for Irish vehicles heading to Dover?"

What planet are they on? Not a hope in hell.

Also if the UK ban Irish meat products then it is solely because of the ban the EU is placing on the uk. They are justified in doing same. It's squarely on the EU if they do not amend the rule to compromise. Irish farmers and economy loses out.

If the U.K. has complaints about the EU treating them just like every other non-EU country when that is what they have spent the last four and a half years working towards, they have only themselves to blame.

If the U.K. really insist on it, they can lodge a complaint with the WTO and wait for it to adjudicate their case in a decade or so.

Should the U.K. engage in unilateral actions such as banning Irish meat, then the U.K. would be in breach of WTO rules, and under WTO rules, the EU would be fully entitled to take retaliatory actions against the U.K. for such a unilateral breach.

Any further action by the U.K. at that point would just result in an escalating trade war between the EU and the U.K. and, given the UK’s dependency on its trade with the EU, the U.K. would lose badly.

Lumen

btw, rough maths on the new Dunkirk service suggests it can take 26% of land bridge freight.

125 trucks X 6 days X 52 weeks = 39,000 trucks.
Total land bridge freight = 150,000 trucks.

I assume the second number excludes freight originating or terminating in GB.

fash

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

"Dublin wanted to know if the flow of Irish goods through the UK to the continent could somehow remain frictionless. Could there be priority lanes for Irish vehicles heading to Dover?"

What planet are they on? Not a hope in hell.
The new proposed ferry route wasn't economically viable in the time before Brexit and it's still not economically viable now.

Also if the UK ban Irish meat products then it is solely because of the ban the EU is placing on the uk. They are justified in doing same. It's squarely on the EU if they do not amend the rule to compromise. Irish farmers and economy loses out.

If they amend the rule for the UK, they need to amend the rule for everyone. There is a reason it is in place. The UK knew it was in place when it elected to Brexit and the UK is surrounded by EU member states (while the EU has non UK neighbours) and no one outside the EU can get chilled meat to the UK aside from the EU (in which the UK has 50 years of confidence in its sanitary standards).
So no it is not reasonable for the UK to expect the EU to change its existing rules and yes it is implementing a new unnecessary rule as a deliberate negotiating tactic to particularly target Irish exports.

Is there any chance that an EU country wouldn't ratify a deal? I know the logic that Barnier is operating within what he's been told by heads of state, but what about parliaments?

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there any chance that an EU country wouldn't ratify a deal? I know the logic that Barnier is operating within what he's been told by heads of state, but what about parliaments?

The Europeam Parliament has made it clear that if the IM bill becomes law with the offending clauses, then NO Deal. It would be better that it was the EP that says Nein, Non, No than an individual EU state.

I doubt that any EU27 would break ranks at this time.

According to RTE, Bertie says Johnson has no negotiating stratergy and is just waiting for the most opportune time to cave.

CelticRambler

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Also if the UK ban Irish meat products then it is solely because of the ban the EU is placing on the uk. They are justified in doing same.

The EU has rules. Every country that wishes to trade with the EU must respect those rules. Unless you're suggesting that the UK politicians and voters were idiots, they knew those rules were in force, protecting the UK from dodgy imports from third countries, and would apply - in full - to the UK if and when it chose to align itself with the third countries rather than the EU.

So there is no onus on the EU to change its rules to accommodate a country that very deliberately and explicity stated that they do not want to be aligned with the bloc.

Mind you, it'd be really funny to see the HoC descend into an offal-flinging fracas such as happened in the Taiwan parliament this week. On the one side (over there) a cohort that wanted Taiwan to remain aligned with EU food safety rules, on the other a party that wanted to allow imports of American pig meat infused with anything that made it cheap and profitable, safety be damned.

ExMachina1000

fash wrote: »

If they amend the rule for the UK, they need to amend the rule for everyone. There is a reason it is in place. The UK knew it was in place when it elected to Brexit and the UK is surrounded by EU member states (while the EU has non UK neighbours) and no one outside the EU can get chilled meat to the UK aside from the EU (in which the UK has 50 years of confidence in its sanitary standards).
So no it is not reasonable for the UK to expect the EU to change its existing rules and yes it is implementing a new unnecessary rule as a deliberate negotiating tactic to particularly target Irish exports.

As part of a deal that the EU sorely wants this can be changed as long as the UK agree to maintain EU standards regarding food. They have been working to this standard for decades. The infrastructure is already in place.
This is the whole idea of negotiations. Compromise.
Now if the UK dont want to stick to EU standards then that is a different story. It will be their own decision then.

If the rule isnt changed then as an independent sovereign country the UK has grounds , rights and justification to do same.
Irish meat producers lose out.

Leroy42

My reading of the noise is that the UK will get it win on fisheries, bit the EU will get its win on LPF.

UK will agree to maintain and match standards such that the NI sea border is not an issue, it will be dressed up as a time limited and open to future negotiations, but it never will be.

But that the UK will pass it owns laws, no more EU stuff. The real outcome is that UK will simply change its laws whenever the EU does.

Zubeneschamali

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

As part of a deal that the EU sorely wants

If we go No Deal in January, the Tories should be gone by Summer and the EU can negotiate the deal they sorely want with Starmer.

rockatansky

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If we go No Deal in January, the Tories should be gone by Summer and the EU can negotiate the deal they sorely want with Starmer.

This is absolutely not the case. Tories would win even if its a no deal.

CelticRambler

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

As part of a deal that the EU sorely wants this can be changed as long as the UK agree to maintain EU standards regarding food. They have been working to this standard for decades. The infrastructure is already in place.
This is the whole idea of negotiations. Compromise.
Now if the UK dont want to stick to EU standards then that is a different story. It will be their own decision then.

And there you have it: the UK has said, in clear and unambiguous terms, that they do not want to be aligned with EU standards, and they have stated in clear and unambiguous terms (much to the anger of their own agri-business) that will refuse to rule out dropping the standards that they have worked to for decades, even striking out an amendment to that effect from their recent Agriculture Bill.

It's a UK decision, not open to compromise.

To the best of my knowledge, they still haven't applied for recognition as a "listed" third country for the purposes of phyto-sanitary controls, so whether or not they can export chilled ready-meals is the least of their farmers' worries.

Gerry T

Leroy42 wrote:

My reading of the noise is that the UK will get it win on fisheries, bit the EU will get its win on LPF.

Seen as the Japan deal had greater restrictions on state aide there's no reason why they wouldn't accept what the EU wants. I think the UK will conceded on fishing, not fully but a share on quota. If the UK does look for 100% of their fishing grounds, then where will they sell their fish.

Leroy42 wrote:

UK will agree to maintain and match standards such that the NI sea border is not an issue, it will be dressed up as a time limited and open to future negotiations, but it never will be.

The only way to do that is to legally match standards, the EU won't trust the UK to do the right thing, just look at their behaviour over the WA. The brexit army won't accept following EU rules past Jan 1, thats the crux of their argument.

Leroy42 wrote:

But that the UK will pass it owns laws, no more EU stuff. The real outcome is that UK will simply change its laws whenever the EU does.

no way the EU will accept this.

Unless Johnson bends over and does a 180 there's no deal and I don't think he will. My money is on no deal, but I hope I'm wrong

Shelga

Gerry T wrote: »

Seen as the Japan deal had greater restrictions on state aide there's no reason why they wouldn't accept what the EU wants. I think the UK will conceded on fishing, not fully but a share on quota. If the UK does look for 100% of their fishing grounds, then where will they sell their fish.


The only way to do that is to legally match standards, the EU won't trust the UK to do the right thing, just look at their behaviour over the WA. The brexit army won't accept following EU rules past Jan 1, thats the crux of their argument.

no way the EU will accept this.

Unless Johnson bends over and does a 180 there's no deal and I don't think he will. My money is on no deal, but I hope I'm wrong

The level of irresponsibility shown by the UK government, in that what you are talking about comes into effect in 32 days and we still don't know what trading terms will be, is grotesque. I would just be so, so angry if I was living in the UK and owned any sort of business right now. And yet there's next to nothing in the media.