The Irish border

[Mrr T]

loafer123 said:

Mrr T said:

Only if the CAA is able to act as a regulatory body and we sign an open sky type agreement with the US. When we leave EASA we lose the current US open sky agreement.

The new agreement between the US and U.K. was allegedly agreed in late May.

Doesn’t sort out the EU, obviously, but worth mentioning.

The agreement is not finalised and the press suggests the deal on offer from the US is more limited and does not cover foreign owned airlines like BA and Virgin. Further the agreement will include cross recognition of regulatory agencies. So it can only be signed when the CAA is ready. That date is not clear.

[don'tbesilly]

desolate said:

Vanden Saab said:

That really depends on how many of the 17 million other Brexit voters also stop using Easyjet in protest....

Ok to rephrase the question

What happens if the airlines just re-register in the EU?

As I mentioned up thread, Easyjet have done just that, in Austria.

[JuniorD]

I’d say he’s probably not wrong

[wisbech]

Vanden Saab said:

Not really as if the EU refuse to allow Uk aircraft to land in the EU the favour will be returned and no EU registered aircraft will be allowed to land in the UK....

Without being legally certified U.K. aircraft can’t take off from the U.K. Won’t be able to get insurance either.

[Rostfritt]

Jinx said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

How does it work, is it open?

Visit Andorra

Free movement of people - simplified customs procedures available.

Not a good comparison at all. Andorra is landlocked between two EU members and doesn't have an airport. So their immigration control is effectively handed over to the EU. Andorra have decided that they will let anyone in with a valid passport and Schengen visa if required, however they are not free to let in people who can't get into France or Spain. As they are a small country the EU is hardly going to have a problem with the few thousand Andorrans having free movement in the EU and anyone who gets in from the EU can only continue their travel back into the EU. They have not created a back door either way, which an open Irish border would.

I am assuming Monaco has something similar or just has left immigration control of its territory to France, including anyone who arrives by sea.

[psi310398]

Rostfritt said:

EDITED DOWN TO SAVE SPACE

As they are a small country the EU is hardly going to have a problem with the few thousand Andorrans having free movement in the EU and anyone who gets in from the EU can only continue their travel back into the EU.

I am assuming Monaco has something similar or just has left immigration control of its territory to France, including anyone who arrives by sea.

My bold.

Yes, an admirably pragmatic approach but not the steadfast application of inviolable rules which is cited as a reason for the Barnier approach on the border.

And what with the CTA (which I presume the Irish wish to keep) and Ireland not being in Schengen, there is no justifiable fear about leakage of undesirables back into the EU being any greater than it is today.

[psi310398]

JuniorD said:

I’d say he’s probably not wrong

Thank you Lord Adonis, whodathunkit?

I am also reliably informed that bears st in the woods.

[Mrr T]

Rostfritt said:

Not a good comparison at all. Andorra is landlocked between two EU members and doesn't have an airport. So their immigration control is effectively handed over to the EU. Andorra have decided that they will let anyone in with a valid passport and Schengen visa if required, however they are not free to let in people who can't get into France or Spain. As they are a small country the EU is hardly going to have a problem with the few thousand Andorrans having free movement in the EU and anyone who gets in from the EU can only continue their travel back into the EU. They have not created a back door either way, which an open Irish border would.

I am assuming Monaco has something similar or just has left immigration control of its territory to France, including anyone who arrives by sea.

Not a good example because it's already been agreed there will be no border for people in Ireland. The border issue is only about goods.

[BlackLabel]

May on the Irish border question (when she spoke to Marr at the weekend). The transcript below. Glad she has cleared that up and explained it so well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/3009180...

bbc said:

AM: All right, so you don’t like the Irish border question. If we leave on no deal, WTO rules, does that have to be a hard border in Ireland? Does there have to be a hard border in Ireland?

TM: Your phrase you used was that I didn’t like the Irish border. This is about the people of Northern Ireland who are part of the United Kingdom. It’s about standing up for the whole of the United Kingdom and we have been very clear from our point of view that we do not want to see a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

AM: But if we leave on so called no deal, WTO rules, that does mean an Irish border, doesn’t it? We’ve checked with the WTO, it does mean a border in Ireland.


TM: Obviously there are certain WTO rules. What we are committed –

AM: Breaks our own promise.

TM: No, we are committed to making sure that we can provide that guarantee to the people of Northern Ireland. Now nobody wants a good deal with the EU better than I do, and that’s why I’m working hard for that good deal and ensuring that we can deliver for every part of the United Kingdom.


AM: But if we leave without a deal you cannot guarantee that there isn’t a hard border in Ireland, can you?

TM: We are working to make sure that we leave with a good deal. That’s what my focus is on.

AM: But if we leave without a deal there will be a border in Ireland, won’t there?

TM: If we leave – if we get to the point of no deal, we’re making the preparations because we don’t know what’s going to come out of the negotiations. If we leave with no deal, we as the United Kingdom government, are still committed to doing everything we can to ensure there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.


AM: So you’ll try but you’ll inevitably fail, because on WTO rules there has to be a border and we should level with people and explain that.

TM: As I say, as a United Kingdom government we will remain committed to doing everything we can to ensure no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. There is only one plan on the table at the moment that provides for that frictionless trade across the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland and indeed between the United Kingdom’s other borders with the TM: As I say, as a United Kingdom government we will remain committed to doing everything we can to ensure no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. There is only one plan on the table at the moment that provides for that frictionless with the European Union. And that is the plan that the UK government has put forward and which has become known as the Chequers Plan.

Edited by BlackLabel on Monday 1st October 14:38

[p1stonhead]

BlackLabel said:

May on the Irish border question (when she spoke to Marr at the weekend). The transcript below. Glad she has cleared that up and explained it so well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/3009180...

bbc said:

AM: All right, so you don’t like the Irish border question. If we leave on no deal, WTO rules, does that have to be a hard border in Ireland? Does there have to be a hard border in Ireland?

TM: Your phrase you used was that I didn’t like the Irish border. This is about the people of Northern Ireland who are part of the United Kingdom. It’s about standing up for the whole of the United Kingdom and we have been very clear from our point of view that we do not want to see a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

AM: But if we leave on so called no deal, WTO rules, that does mean an Irish border, doesn’t it? We’ve checked with the WTO, it does mean a border in Ireland.


TM: Obviously there are certain WTO rules. What we are committed –

AM: Breaks our own promise.

TM: No, we are committed to making sure that we can provide that guarantee to the people of Northern Ireland. Now nobody wants a good deal with the EU better than I do, and that’s why I’m working hard for that good deal and ensuring that we can deliver for every part of the United Kingdom.


AM: But if we leave without a deal you cannot guarantee that there isn’t a hard border in Ireland, can you?

TM: We are working to make sure that we leave with a good deal. That’s what my focus is on.

AM: But if we leave without a deal there will be a border in Ireland, won’t there?

TM: If we leave – if we get to the point of no deal, we’re making the preparations because we don’t know what’s going to come out of the negotiations. If we leave with no deal, we as the United Kingdom government, are still committed to doing everything we can to ensure there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.


AM: So you’ll try but you’ll inevitably fail, because on WTO rules there has to be a border and we should level with people and explain that.

TM: As I say, as a United Kingdom government we will remain committed to doing everything we can to ensure no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. There is only one plan on the table at the moment that provides for that frictionless trade across the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland and indeed between the United Kingdom’s other borders with the TM: As I say, as a United Kingdom government we will remain committed to doing everything we can to ensure no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. There is only one plan on the table at the moment that provides for that frictionless with the European Union. And that is the plan that the UK government has put forward and which has become known as the Chequers Plan.

Edited by BlackLabel on Monday 1st October 14:38

As usual, robot May comes out with absolute drivel.

[psi310398]

p1stonhead said:

As usual, robot May comes out with absolute drivel.

Inept, too.

She could simply have pointed out that there already is a border there and in the event of failure to agree a deal the UK will do nothing to make it more obvious than it is today. The WTO does not specify the form borders need to take nor how they are policed.

Ball firmly in Varadkar's court. Job jobbed.

[Mrr T]

psi310398 said:

p1stonhead said:

As usual, robot May comes out with absolute drivel.

Inept, too.

She could simply have pointed out that there already is a border there and in the event of failure to agree a deal the UK will do nothing to make it more obvious than it is today. The WTO does not specify the form borders need to take nor how they are policed.

Ball firmly in Varadkar's court. Job jobbed.

TM maybe inept but to then to post an equally inept comment suggects TM and you are from the same mould.

[psi310398]

Mrr T said:

TM maybe inept but to then to post an equally inept comment suggects TM and you are from the same mould.

Anything factually wrong in what I have written?

[Murph7355]

Mrr T said:

TM maybe inept but to then to post an equally inept comment suggects TM and you are from the same mould.

I've seen you post often about this but have you ever posted any detail on what the WTO insists upon?

My understanding is that the WTO simply insists that trade partners are treated equitably when trading under MFN. There is no requirement for a "hard border" per se. Though it might be useful if you describe what you think that means - what concrete should it be made from? How many men in hats need to be deployed? I don;t think the WTO actually define it, do they?

It then comes down to how well you can argue what constitutes equitable? We could say zero checks whatsoever (possibly not sensible, but who knows.
It might be liberating). We could simply say we'll do all our checks away from the actual borders and/or do only a set %age of them. Voila, no need for anything more in the island of Ireland than already exists.

As all this would need to go through courts/tribunals, who's to say we couldn't be even more specific and say anything crossing a UK land border gets dealt with one way, anything not doing so gets treated differently? (And bang all that down to logistical necessity).

You keep giving the impression that a "hard border" means just that, and with ref to the WTO. But I have seen nothing whatsoever that backs that up. It feels like one of those little throwaways that's launched into a debate to kill it/put it into the "it's all too hard, let's not bother" camp. So where are the precise rules that define this horrendous "hard border" that will prompt the restart of The Troubles?

The WTO doesn't seem to have any. And Barnier himself is cool with checking goods away from the actual border.

?

[Shay HTFC]

JuniorD said:

I’d say he’s probably not wrong

Politicians being politicians shocker!

[psi310398]

Murph7355 said:

I've seen you post often about this but have you ever posted any detail on what the WTO insists upon?

My understanding is that the WTO simply insists that trade partners are treated equitably when trading under MFN. There is no requirement for a "hard border" per se. Though it might be useful if you describe what you think that means - what concrete should it be made from? How many men in hats need to be deployed? I don;t think the WTO actually define it, do they?

It then comes down to how well you can argue what constitutes equitable? We could say zero checks whatsoever (possibly not sensible, but who knows.
It might be liberating). We could simply say we'll do all our checks away from the actual borders and/or do only a set %age of them. Voila, no need for anything more in the island of Ireland than already exists.

As all this would need to go through courts/tribunals, who's to say we couldn't be even more specific and say anything crossing a UK land border gets dealt with one way, anything not doing so gets treated differently? (And bang all that down to logistical necessity).

You keep giving the impression that a "hard border" means just that, and with ref to the WTO. But I have seen nothing whatsoever that backs that up. It feels like one of those little throwaways that's launched into a debate to kill it/put it into the "it's all too hard, let's not bother" camp. So where are the precise rules that define this horrendous "hard border" that will prompt the restart of The Troubles?

The WTO doesn't seem to have any. And Barnier himself is cool with checking goods away from the actual border.

?

Come on Murph, you can't let small matters like facts and reasoned argument (or even the logic of M. Barnier's views) stand in the way of prejudice.

[Mrr T]

Murph7355 said:

I've seen you post often about this but have you ever posted any detail on what the WTO insists upon?

My understanding is that the WTO simply insists that trade partners are treated equitably when trading under MFN. There is no requirement for a "hard border" per se. Though it might be useful if you describe what you think that means - what concrete should it be made from? How many men in hats need to be deployed?

WTO rules mean if you offer MFN (without a mutual FTA) then you must offer the same to every other WTO member. So if you leave the border with Ireland open you must do the same to every other WTO member. WTO does not say how you police a border but if goods entering the UK from other WTO members require customs declaration which are linked to the goods crossing the border you must do the same in Ireland.

It's not hard.

[Murph7355]

Mrr T said:

WTO rules mean if you offer MFN (without a mutual FTA) then you must offer the same to every other WTO member. So if you leave the border with Ireland open you must do the same to every other WTO member. WTO does not say how you police a border but if goods entering the UK from other WTO members require customs declaration which are linked to the goods crossing the border you must do the same in Ireland.

It's not hard.

Quite, it's not.

So as long as we adopt one method for those checks to be carried out (at border posts, not at border posts, electronically, by semaphore etc) then we are good to go. No need for a "hard border" in Ireland (unless your pedantry is calling that sort of thing a "hard border"? In which case I don't think you're on message with why this has been put to the fore as a major stumbling block).

Equally, is there anything in the WTO rule book that states we would be unable to say "anything coming in by lorry, this is the procedure"? Fair's fair. All get's treated the same...

There is also the fact that other countries would need to raise a challenge to procedures and prove they are inequitable. How long do you think that would take? And far do you think it would get?

I do accept that this is actually a trickier situation for the EU, as they do have another land border to worry about. But I think most of that is covered by trade arrangements one way or another anyway. It's also their problem to an extent - they are perfectly capable of addressing it without erecting infrastructure on their side. If they don't want to, their call.

[Murph7355]

Shay HTFC said:

Politicians being politicians shocker!

If he told me today was Monday I'd check the calendar.

[psi310398]

Murph7355 said:

Mrr T said:

WTO rules mean if you offer MFN (without a mutual FTA) then you must offer the same to every other WTO member. So if you leave the border with Ireland open you must do the same to every other WTO member. WTO does not say how you police a border but if goods entering the UK from other WTO members require customs declaration which are linked to the goods crossing the border you must do the same in Ireland.

It's not hard.

Quite, it's not.

So as long as we adopt one method for those checks to be carried out (at border posts, not at border posts, electronically, by semaphore etc) then we are good to go. No need for a "hard border" in Ireland (unless your pedantry is calling that sort of thing a "hard border"? In which case I don't think you're on message with why this has been put to the fore as a major stumbling block).

Equally, is there anything in the WTO rule book that states we would be unable to say "anything coming in by lorry, this is the procedure"? Fair's fair. All get's treated the same...

There is also the fact that other countries would need to raise a challenge to procedures and prove they are inequitable. How long do you think that would take? And far do you think it would get?

I do accept that this is actually a trickier situation for the EU, as they do have another land border to worry about. But I think most of that is covered by trade arrangements one way or another anyway. It's also their problem to an extent - they are perfectly capable of addressing it without erecting infrastructure on their side. If they don't want to, their call.

On Mrr T's last point, the UK hasn't governed Ireland for the best part of 100 years and has no control over what the government there does. It is a sovereign nation. So if Ireland no longer wishes to trade with the UK on the terms agreed under any withdrawal agreement, so be it. But it should be remembered that the the Irish will not be compelled to trade with the UK, nor the UK with Ireland. We are describing voluntary acts.

When the UK leaves the EU and the CU/SM, of course there'll be a customs border. And, yes, documents for cross-border exports will have to be produced. It is also possible that the UK and EU will levy tariffs on each other's goods.

But the system does not need to be intrusive and the MFN stuff is largely irrelevant if you are talking about local issues such as moving, say, live heifers over the border. (We do not see many such movements from Uzbekistan or Senegal and the WTO would not chide us for not having a system in place for dealing with them.)

Ireland is the UK's only land border and, as such, is capable of being treated differently from sea or air port entry elsewhere in the UK. In any case, sea and air port entry is largely pre-documented and the number of physical customs checks is already vanishingly small.

There is already a customs regime in place on the island of Ireland for dutiable goods (fags/booze etc) and for fuel. It is, more or less, policed today. The world hasn't collapsed so far and it is hard to see why it would if Barnier's proposal were implemented on an East-West axis rather than a North-South one.