The Irish border
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
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.
WTO rules do not discriminate between a land or sea border. So while the policing can differ the document requirements must be similar. 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.
Your right that WTO disputes are slow to adjudicate. However, if you want to rejoin the WTO do you want to be in breach of the rules?
As I have said before there maybe a technology solution but it not even been started.
Mrr T said:
WTO rules do not discriminate between a land or sea border. So while the policing can differ the document requirements must be similar.
Your right that WTO disputes are slow to adjudicate. However, if you want to rejoin the WTO do you want to be in breach of the rules?
As I have said before there maybe a technology solution but it not even been started.
The technology solution has already been finished for the customs processing of the types of shipments that can originate from outside the customs union... Your right that WTO disputes are slow to adjudicate. However, if you want to rejoin the WTO do you want to be in breach of the rules?
As I have said before there maybe a technology solution but it not even been started.
The WTO "dispute" can be headed off by requesting an arbitrator to come and determine the reasonable implementation period to effect the changes, without disrupting trade in the meantime.
Sway said:
The technology solution has already been finished for the customs processing of the types of shipments that can originate from outside the customs union...
The WTO "dispute" can be headed off by requesting an arbitrator to come and determine the reasonable implementation period to effect the changes, without disrupting trade in the meantime.
The current systems to clear customs from outside the EU are designed for products entering the UK via container or in bulk via a port with the ability to process documents over several hours. The WTO "dispute" can be headed off by requesting an arbitrator to come and determine the reasonable implementation period to effect the changes, without disrupting trade in the meantime.
As for the arbitration last time you posted that you seemed to be of the view the system would apply to both imports and exports. Where as the system would only to imports. Now it's very nice of you to want to spend my money protecting Ireland's exports but how about NI exports?
Mrr T said:
Sway said:
The technology solution has already been finished for the customs processing of the types of shipments that can originate from outside the customs union...
The WTO "dispute" can be headed off by requesting an arbitrator to come and determine the reasonable implementation period to effect the changes, without disrupting trade in the meantime.
The current systems to clear customs from outside the EU are designed for products entering the UK via container or in bulk via a port with the ability to process documents over several hours. The WTO "dispute" can be headed off by requesting an arbitrator to come and determine the reasonable implementation period to effect the changes, without disrupting trade in the meantime.
As for the arbitration last time you posted that you seemed to be of the view the system would apply to both imports and exports. Where as the system would only to imports. Now it's very nice of you to want to spend my money protecting Ireland's exports but how about NI exports?
I didn't "seem" to suggest it would apply to both imports and exports - merely that the system requirements to create the appropriate documentation are exactly the same. The process applies both ways - and don't worry, I'm not "spending your tax".
If the EU want to give up the AEO/Trusted Trader WTO scheme, then NI exports have a problem. As it is, they'll be fine - unless RoI choose to make life difficult.
If they do, that's their choice, and something we have zero input on.
One of the pros of voting Leave is a clear conscience on deciding things for other countries. Respecting their sovereignty.
Mrr T said:
WTO rules do not discriminate between a land or sea border. So while the policing can differ the document requirements must be similar.
Your right that WTO disputes are slow to adjudicate. However, if you want to rejoin the WTO do you want to be in breach of the rules?
As I have said before there maybe a technology solution but it not even been started.
Splendid. So we're down to document consistency. Your right that WTO disputes are slow to adjudicate. However, if you want to rejoin the WTO do you want to be in breach of the rules?
As I have said before there maybe a technology solution but it not even been started.
Of course we wouldn't actively want to break the rules. It would be up to a court to decide if we were if ANOther trading nation decided we were skewing the WTO field against them.
Mrr T said:
WTO rules do not discriminate between a land or sea border. So while the policing can differ the document requirements must be similar.
Your right that WTO disputes are slow to adjudicate. However, if you want to rejoin the WTO do you want to be in breach of the rules?
As I have said before there maybe a technology solution but it not even been started.
Rejoin the WTO? Are you suggesting that we are not currently a member? Your right that WTO disputes are slow to adjudicate. However, if you want to rejoin the WTO do you want to be in breach of the rules?
As I have said before there maybe a technology solution but it not even been started.
psi310398 said:
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.
Drivel.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.
Wasn't one of the objectives of Brexit "taking back control of our borders" ?
How is leaving an open border achieving that?
Jazzer77 said:
psi310398 said:
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.
Drivel.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.
Wasn't one of the objectives of Brexit "taking back control of our borders" ?
How is leaving an open border achieving that?
Jazzer77 said:
Drivel.
Wasn't one of the objectives of Brexit "taking back control of our borders" ?
How is leaving an open border achieving that?
We control by actively deciding to do something or not - that is the definition of control. Wasn't one of the objectives of Brexit "taking back control of our borders" ?
How is leaving an open border achieving that?
In any case, with the CTA, in the case of the island of Ireland, it is moot, given that the control of our borders rhetoric was always more about people than goods.
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.
Actually it means that if you leave the UK/Ireland border open for EU goods you should also leave it open for goods from everywhere else. Which it would be. WTO rules do not compel us to have customs officers on every country lane crossing the border, any more than on every beach in case a boat lands from somewhere else. It's not hard.
The whole point of the WTO is to facilitate trade, not prevent it, WTO rules specify that borders should be as friction free as possible, with only those restrictions necessary for safety. If we did want to blockade ourselves by restricting imports from Ireland, we'd have to explain what was so dangerous and how come it hadn't come across in the last 40 years.
psi310398 said:
We control by actively deciding to do something or not - that is the definition of control.
In any case, with the CTA, in the case of the island of Ireland, it is moot, given that the control of our borders rhetoric was always more about people than goods.
If you have strict controls along Dover etc.. whats to stop a flood (Daily Mail expression) of people entering via Southern Ireland?In any case, with the CTA, in the case of the island of Ireland, it is moot, given that the control of our borders rhetoric was always more about people than goods.
It would now be the weak spot.
So now that it doesn't fit the narrative ; "taking back our borders" is consigned to the "it was only rhetoric" bin.
Jazzer77 said:
psi310398 said:
We control by actively deciding to do something or not - that is the definition of control.
In any case, with the CTA, in the case of the island of Ireland, it is moot, given that the control of our borders rhetoric was always more about people than goods.
If you have strict controls along Dover etc.. whats to stop a flood (Daily Mail expression) of people entering via Southern Ireland?In any case, with the CTA, in the case of the island of Ireland, it is moot, given that the control of our borders rhetoric was always more about people than goods.
It would now be the weak spot.
So now that it doesn't fit the narrative ; "taking back our borders" is consigned to the "it was only rhetoric" bin.
Jazzer77 said:
psi310398 said:
We control by actively deciding to do something or not - that is the definition of control.
In any case, with the CTA, in the case of the island of Ireland, it is moot, given that the control of our borders rhetoric was always more about people than goods.
If you have strict controls along Dover etc.. whats to stop a flood (Daily Mail expression) of people entering via Southern Ireland?In any case, with the CTA, in the case of the island of Ireland, it is moot, given that the control of our borders rhetoric was always more about people than goods.
It would now be the weak spot.
So now that it doesn't fit the narrative ; "taking back our borders" is consigned to the "it was only rhetoric" bin.
1. ROI l not in the shengen zone
2. The CTA set up on the founding of the free state in 1922 which governs border controls, movement of people, goods and residency of U.K. / ROI citizens
3. Basically the British Isles borders are policed jointly by ROI/UK under CTA
Ructions said:
Sway said:
One of the pros of voting Leave is a clear conscience on deciding things for other countries. Respecting their sovereignty.
If only Britain had a bit of respect for Irish sovereignty in the first place.I'm happy to be accountable for the things I can.
Mrr T said:
Vanden Saab said:
Rejoin the WTO? Are you suggesting that we are not currently a member?
The UK was a member of the WTO it is now a member as part of the EU when the UK leave the EU it must rejoin.s2art said:
Mrr T said:
Vanden Saab said:
Rejoin the WTO? Are you suggesting that we are not currently a member?
The UK was a member of the WTO it is now a member as part of the EU when the UK leave the EU it must rejoin.I find this a trait common to Remainers.
Sadly, it comes across a bit gleeful at times.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff