Brexit discussion

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Theresa May has not moved on the customs union issue and she would not be able to get Cabinet agreement on that. If there is a trade deal, there will be no need for a hard border. If there's not, the government has alternative plans to deal with that.

A trade deal does not mean no hard border. The EU has a trade deals with several nations and there are still bordered. America has borders despite being in NAFTA. That’s not what a trade deal means.

The government clearly does not have alternative plans because if they did we would know them by know. There is either a border or there isn’t and irrespective of your personal faith that May has not moved on the Customs Union it’s there in black and white that the fallback option should the border not be sorted that the U.K. will not put one up.

If you want goods to move freely between nations without custom checks then you need to be in the Customs Union. If we say we’re simply not going to put up a border in the special case of Ireland the WTO says the same applies to other nations.

You’re entitled to believe whatever you want and overall I think May has down well by Brexiters but even the most loyal hardcore Brexit people can see there has been movement on the issue of the border.

I am not even sure if you’re serious because it seems every item of the agreement was a fantastic win for May to the point of parody.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

A trade deal does not mean no hard border. The EU has a trade deals with several nations and there are still bordered. America has borders despite being in NAFTA. That’s not what a trade deal means.

The government clearly does not have alternative plans because if they did we would know them by know. There is either a border or there isn’t and irrespective of your personal faith that May has not moved on the Customs Union it’s there in black and white that the fallback option should the border not be sorted that the U.K. will not put one up.

If you want goods to move freely between nations without custom checks then you need to be in the Customs Union. If we say we’re simply not going to put up a border in the special case of Ireland the WTO says the same applies to other nations.

You’re entitled to believe whatever you want and overall I think May has down well by Brexiters but even the most loyal hardcore Brexit people can see there has been movement on the issue of the border.

I am not even sure if you’re serious because it seems every item of the agreement was a fantastic win for May to the point of parody.

I'm hoping it's parody and not naivety. Interesting article in the FT about how Switzerland still has a hard border.

Border infrastructure and customs declarations are necessary, however, because Switzerland is not part of the EU’s customs union or value added tax regime, which are separate from the single market. This difference requires both sides to build and staff a hard border with sometimes significant delays...
For trading companies, each load requires a customs declaration, multiple forms and stamps by the tax authorities to ensure that the formalities are closed on each side before goods cross the tax border. Within the Union none of this applies because complete regulatory alignment is married to an EU VAT regime, all within the customs union. This VAT system has its problems, but ensures that goods can flow across borders with no formalities...
Regulatory alignment would remove only some of Brexit’s border barriers in Ireland. The UK and Ireland should take note.

https://www.ft.com/content/2d30482c-...9-c64b1c09b482

[Gavin78]

Thing is trade has already being setup through being a member. the EU doesn't have the task of setting one up from scratch.

We know and they know how it works. So we go in with the same trades we already have we don't have to talk about chloride in chicken or anything like that. The only difference is in the future when we have left and future trade deals may need talks depending on where the EU wants to take themselves.

We know for one thing it's not as stable as it would like to be. 40bn won't prop up the EU for long, it will be interesting to see who they actually trade with now they don't have the financial support of the UK where they wouldn't have given them a second thought

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Damien

A trade deal does not mean no hard border. The EU has a trade deals with several nations and there are still bordered. America has borders despite being in NAFTA. That’s not what a trade deal means.

The government clearly does not have alternative plans because if they did we would know them by know. There is either a border or there isn’t and irrespective of your personal faith that May has not moved on the Customs Union it’s there in black and white that the fallback option should the border not be sorted that the U.K. will not put one up.

If you want goods to move freely between nations without custom checks then you need to be in the Customs Union. If we say we’re simply not going to put up a border in the special case of Ireland the WTO says the same applies to other nations.

You’re entitled to believe whatever you want and overall I think May has down well by Brexiters but even the most loyal hardcore Brexit people can see there has been movement on the issue of the border.

I am not even sure if you’re serious because it seems every item of the agreement was a fantastic win for May to the point of parody.

Pessimism reigns on this thread!

We already have the same regulatory regime with the EU, and in terms of our trade with the EU, this will remain the same in key areas. The government is being very clear that there are alternatives to having a hard border and this will be the subject, or one of the subjects, to be discussed in detail during Phase II. Watch this space.

There has been no movement in relation to the border - you are letting your imagination run away with you. Do you really think those prickly Northern Irish politicians would allow that? They interrupted TM's celebratory dinner to clarify that very point.

I am well aware that a trade deal does not automatically mean no border controls, and you have rightly pointed to examples where borders still exist. However, ours is a special case, and all parties - the UK (and in particular, Northern Ireland) and the EU (including the Republic of Ireland) - want there to be no border. It makes sense, therefore, to ensure that any trade deal covers this aspect for the benefit of all.

Once again, I have to remind you that we cannot both be in the customs union and forge our own trade deals. That is certainly not what the government has in mind when it talks about not having a hard border with the EU on the island of Ireland. What I think the government is aiming at is having each country carrying out border checks on behalf of the other.

---------- Post added at 14:47 ---------- Previous post was at 14:44 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm hoping it's parody and not naivety. Interesting article in the FT about how Switzerland still has a hard border.

https://www.ft.com/content/2d30482c-...9-c64b1c09b482

That doesn't mean we can't have one!

TM has made it clear that she intends to negotiate a unique deal for Britain. You don't always have to follow what others have done. A bit of imagination is required in this game.

---------- Post added at 14:48 ---------- Previous post was at 14:47 ----------

Originally Posted by Gavin78

Thing is trade has already being setup through being a member. the EU doesn't have the task of setting one up from scratch.

We know and they know how it works. So we go in with the same trades we already have we don't have to talk about chloride in chicken or anything like that. The only difference is in the future when we have left and future trade deals may need talks depending on where the EU wants to take themselves.

We know for one thing it's not as stable as it would like to be. 40bn won't prop up the EU for long, it will be interesting to see who they actually trade with now they don't have the financial support of the UK where they wouldn't have given them a second thought

Quite agree.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm hoping it's parody and not naivety. Interesting article in the FT about how Switzerland still has a hard border.

https://www.ft.com/content/2d30482c-...9-c64b1c09b482

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That doesn't mean we can't have one!

TM has made it clear that she intends to negotiate a unique deal for Britain. You don't always have to follow what others have done. A bit of imagination is required in this game.

We've signed up to having no hard border between NI and Ireland. So we can't have one.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

We've signed up to having no hard border between NI and Ireland. So we can't have one.

That's what I meant, Andrew - an agreement that doesn't require a hard border.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That's what I meant, Andrew - an agreement that doesn't require a hard border.

However, technology won't remove a hard border, only being part of or mirroring the customs union and single market will.

The truth is that, if it were that easy to invisibly police customs borders, countries would have done it by now. The fact that even the most technologically advanced countries with the most friendly and co-operative relationships with their neighbours still need to carry out customs checks shows that we are unlikely to be able to eliminate the border in Ireland with satellites, flying machines or any other gizmos.
Which leaves us back where we started. The UK government can’t leave the Single Market and the Customs Union and, at the same time, avoid a physical border in Ireland. Perhaps some form of words will be found next week to allow us to fudge our way to the next stage of the Brexit talks but, if it does, the issue will just come up again when we start to discuss trade terms. All this talk of technological solutions reminds me of those corporate bosses who have no idea how to get out of the mess they are in but assure their staff that everything will be OK once the new system is implemented. Technology is never enough on its own though. It certainly won’t dig our government out of the corner into which it has painted itself.

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpres...der-disappear/

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

However, technology won't remove a hard border, only being part of or mirroring the customs union and single market will.

https://flipchartfairytales.wordpres...der-disappear/

Not true. If the Republic of Ireland take account of UK requirements at its ports and NI does the same for the Republic, the way to fully resolve this problem becomes clear.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not true. If the Republic of Ireland take account of UK requirements at its ports and NI does the same for the Republic, the way to fully resolve this problem becomes clear.

I'm not sure you understand what a hard border is. Stopping lorries going from one country to another with an inspection be it every lorry or every one in a thousand lorries is a hard border. The article I quoted from explains the issue in full.

[jonbxx]

The company I work exports from our warehouse in Sweden all over Europe. The difference in paperwork between exporting to an EU country and a non-EU one is huge. EU exports are simp,y logged in EUROSTAT while non-EU shipments need full tariff declarations, certificates of origin, etc. For goods not made in Sweden but in the USA or China for example, decisions need to be made whether to import in to Sweden or to hold in bonded status and ship if from the manufacturing country. This only touches my work slightly but shows the complexity of non-tariff barriers to trade...

By the way, here’s an article on the past weeks shenanigans from an Irish perspective - https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and...-negotiations/

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm not sure you understand what a hard border is. Stopping lorries going from one country to another with an inspection be it every lorry or every one in a thousand lorries is a hard border. The article I quoted from explains the issue in full.

Except that this isn't what is being proposed! Checks at ports, but not between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, is the idea, although there's a lot of thinking to be done to iron out details.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Except that this isn't what is being proposed! Checks at ports, but not between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, is the idea, although there's a lot of thinking to be done to iron out details.

You can’t have a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. either. The agreement says so and so do the DUP.

[RichardCoulter]

I can see us still ending up still being in the EU in all but name, but no longer having a say ie worse than the current arrangement and paying a shed load of money for the privilege.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I can see us still ending up still being in the EU in all but name, but no longer having a say ie worse than the current arrangement and paying a shed load of money for the privilege.

It will obviously be a worse deal as the EU's aim is to attract member states not make it better for them to leave. And many of the trade deals the EU has signed with third countries have revision clauses in them meaning that those deals can be revised in the third country's favour if the EU signs a more favourable deal with another third country eg the UK.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

I can see us still ending up still being in the EU in all but name, but no longer having a say ie worse than the current arrangement and paying a shed load of money for the privilege.

And why exactly would the government agree to that? Crazy logic, and that is not going to happen!

---------- Post added at 01:19 ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It will obviously be a worse deal as the EU's aim is to attract member states not make it better for them to leave. And many of the trade deals the EU has signed with third countries have revision clauses in them meaning that those deals can be revised in the third country's favour if the EU signs a more favourable deal with another third country eg the UK.

So in your view, Andrew, what the EU want is what the EU gets. We will see about that!

We are perfectly capable of signing our own trade deals, and a lot more quickly than the EU does. A decade in negotiation with the US and still no deal!

Why do you and other remainers have such faith in these guys?