The Irish border

[Vanden Saab]

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.

Wrong. Anyone can google and find the WTO website, and guess what? The WTO thinks the UK is a member. So who do I believe, the WTO or you?

Correct answer

WTO website said:

This page gathers information on the United Kingdom's participation in the WTO. The United Kingdom has been a WTO member since 1 January 1995 and a member of GATT since 1 January 1948. It is a member State of the European Union (more info). All EU member States are WTO members, as is the EU (until 30 November 2009 known officially in the WTO as the European Communities for legal reasons) in its own right.

https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/u...

[don'tbesilly]

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.

Wrong. Anyone can google and find the WTO website, and guess what? The WTO thinks the UK is a member. So who do I believe, the WTO or you?

My money would go on the WTO

The UK is a member of the WTO in its own right, having cofounded the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the WTO’s predecessor, with other 22 countries in 1948.

It does not have to reapply to join the WTO once it leaves the EU.

[psi310398]

don'tbesilly said:

My money would go on the WTO

The UK is a member of the WTO in its own right, having cofounded the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the WTO’s predecessor, with other 22 countries in 1948.

It does not have to reapply to join the WTO once it leaves the EU.

Technically correct but it will need to agree with the EU and with other WTO members how to divvy up various allocations of specially treated goods under various side agreements, and it will start acting independently in the various WTO deliberations, rather than as part of the EU bloc. So, while its membership status won't change technically, it will experience many of the things a new member would have to undergo.

[anonymous-user]

psi310398 said:

Technically correct but it will need to agree with the EU and with other WTO members how to divvy up various allocations of specially treated goods under various side agreements, and it will start acting independently in the various WTO deliberations, rather than as part of the EU bloc. So, while its membership status won't change technically, it will experience many of the things a new member would have to undergo.

There is no appetite at the WTO to make trading with the 5th largest economy, one that is a major trading nation that other WTO members rely on for trade, more difficult. The WTO are not the EU and dont have their project on the line if they act like professionals who want to see world trade continue.

UK and EU have already agreed how to divvy up the current quota's before they are fully renegotiated, that was lodged with the WTO last year.

[psi310398]

jsf said:

There is no appetite at the WTO to make trading with the 5th largest economy, one that is a major trading nation that other WTO members rely on for trade, more difficult. The WTO are not the EU and dont have their project on the line if they act like professionals who want to see world trade continue.

UK and EU have already agreed how to divvy up the current quota's before they are fully renegotiated, that was lodged with the WTO last year.

Thanks.

But the division of the quota allocations is open to challenge by other members IIRC i.e. it is not simply the subject of a bilateral agreement?

[Vanden Saab]

psi310398 said:

jsf said:

There is no appetite at the WTO to make trading with the 5th largest economy, one that is a major trading nation that other WTO members rely on for trade, more difficult. The WTO are not the EU and dont have their project on the line if they act like professionals who want to see world trade continue.

UK and EU have already agreed how to divvy up the current quota's before they are fully renegotiated, that was lodged with the WTO last year.

Thanks.

But the division of the quota allocations is open to challenge by other members IIRC i.e. it is not simply the subject of a bilateral agreement?

there is a very useful piece here... https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2017/10/07/pri... which explains things well IMHO

Remember MrrT saying about us being outside the regulations....

tradebetablog said:

The UK’s and EU–27’s schedules of WTO commitments would not necessarily need to be certified in the WTO by that date. The EU has been trading smoothly despite its schedules for various phases of enlargement remaining uncertified for years

Obviously in his opinion despite the EU doing exactly this, it isn't something we can do...

[anonymous-user]

psi310398 said:

Thanks.

But the division of the quota allocations is open to challenge by other members IIRC i.e. it is not simply the subject of a bilateral agreement?

Everything is open to challenge at the WTO, just look at the list of disputes currently lodged.

UK and EU have put forward how they transition with the WTO, its one of the few areas they have been sensible and fully agreed so far.

[Trolleys Thank You]

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?
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.

Absolutely.

FAO the mods. Why have I been banned from a certain topic? Some posters are far more pernickety than me. Granted, I don't hold the the majority view on here regarding suppressing true democracy in this country but does that warrant me being silenced?

[wisbech]

Sway said:

The same reason that people don't travel through that way today - unless you're suggesting tourist visas for EU citizens?

Surinder Singh route - Ireland is usually touted as the easiest way due to English speaking

True, nothing really to do with the border, more the convenience

(Loophole in the UK tough family visa programme - if you marry a foreigner, use your EU rights to live with them in Ireland, and once you have EU residency for them, again use EU rights to move back to UK. Given the delays and backlogs in the ‘proper’ route at the moment, probably faster as well...)

[Murph7355]

Trolleys Thank You said:

...
FAO the mods. Why have I been banned from a certain topic? Some posters are far more pernickety than me. Granted, I don't hold the the majority view on here regarding suppressing true democracy in this country but does that warrant me being silenced?

This appears to be happening to others too.

I can imagine moderating these threads is a nightmare, especially with the amount of trolling going on. But there seems to be inconsistency happening.

Either let it be a free for all or stop posting more consistently.

(btw TTY, go and look into the CTA. Pre-dates the EU and helps prevent issues. Ditto ROI not being in Schengen. If that changes, maybe we'll need to rethink.)

[amusingduck]

Trolleys Thank You said:

Absolutely.

FAO the mods. Why have I been banned from a certain topic? Some posters are far more pernickety than me. Granted, I don't hold the the majority view on here regarding suppressing true democracy in this country but does that warrant me being silenced?

"I wasn't the worst offender" is a piss poor defense.

[slow_poke]

Arlene Foster reckons the GFA can be changed.

I happen to agree with her but maybe not for the reasons she's thinking about.

[Welshbeef]

Are the EU ignoring the CTA law?

If so why

[slow_poke]

Welshbeef said:

Are the EU ignoring the CTA law?

If so why

I don't think they are - the CTA already nicely solves a whole bunch of other problems that might've come up otherwise. What makes you suspect so?

[Sway]

slow_poke said:

Arlene Foster reckons the GFA can be changed.

I happen to agree with her but maybe not for the reasons she's thinking about.

Which bit of the GFA needs to change, and what proposal being mooted breaches the GFA as it stands today?

[slow_poke]

Sway said:

slow_poke said:

Arlene Foster reckons the GFA can be changed.

I happen to agree with her but maybe not for the reasons she's thinking about.

Which bit of the GFA needs to change, and what proposal being mooted breaches the GFA as it stands today?

Dunno at all. No idea whatsoever what the woman is thinking about.

But re changing the GFA - that'd involve renegotiating internally within NI (and good luck to anyone trying to get the Shinners and the DUPpers to renegotiate that given they can't even agree to form an Executive together) and It'd involve London and Dublin renegotiating whatever bits needs changing - that's an international diplomacy task and I suppose both sides there are capable of handling that. Whether they'd come to a new agreement or not - who knows?

But the GFA per se isn't a sacred cow. It's a means to an end and once the time comes to move on from it then there's no reason (well, see above re Shinners n DUPpers) why international diplomacy can't produce the next agreement.

But for your wan to think the GFA can be altered unilaterally just to suit party political ends - that's pretty much a non-starter. It might be terminated unilaterally by one side or the other for whatever reason, but unilaterally altering it ain't gonna fly.

[Welshbeef]

slow_poke said:

Welshbeef said:

Are the EU ignoring the CTA law?

If so why

I don't think they are - the CTA already nicely solves a whole bunch of other problems that might've come up otherwise. What makes you suspect so?

Because it is the common TRAVEL area ie freedom of movement which is at odds with the single market.

Unless they are willing to let people freely travel through the border without even the slightest check.

The goods surely are checked to an extent already due to VAT differences unless it’s all done on trust..

[slow_poke]

Welshbeef said:

slow_poke said:

Welshbeef said:

Are the EU ignoring the CTA law?

If so why

I don't think they are - the CTA already nicely solves a whole bunch of other problems that might've come up otherwise. What makes you suspect so?

Because it is the common TRAVEL area ie freedom of movement which is at odds with the single market.

Unless they are willing to let people freely travel through the border without even the slightest check.

The goods surely are checked to an extent already due to VAT differences unless it’s all done on trust..

It's free movement of labour that impinges on the Single Market? If Ireland's happy with the CTA, the UK's happy with it, the EU's happy with it then it's a non-problem. Wish everything else was as agreeable.

[Welshbeef]

slow_poke said:

It's free movement of labour that impinges on the Single Market? If Ireland's happy with the CTA, the UK's happy with it, the EU's happy with it then it's a non-problem. Wish everything else was as agreeable.

Why are Ireland not in agreeement with the CTA?

[slow_poke]

Welshbeef said:

slow_poke said:

It's free movement of labour that impinges on the Single Market? If Ireland's happy with the CTA, the UK's happy with it, the EU's happy with it then it's a non-problem. Wish everything else was as agreeable.

Why are Ireland not in agreeement with the CTA?

I didn't say that. I said the opposite of that.