How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 8)

[Mrr T]

Tuna said:

Mrr T said:

Camoradi – The WTO does not set requirements for borders but it does require a member to treat all other members equally. Having no border controls for good with Ireland means the UK must have no border controls with the rest of the world. Otherwise other members can raise a dispute. WTO dispute procedures are slow and there is no real penalty for losing. However, its unlikely to help the UK negotiate new FTA’s.

SpeckledJim – That argument has only been used to increase border security never have none.

What? Not having a physical, 'hard' border is not even slightly like "having no border controls". This is the most dishonest argument I've seen.

So what border for goods will exist in NI. I mean the ones that monitors customs declaration, collects tariffs and VAT etc, etc. You know like the ones that exists for our trade with the ROTW.

You know that does not exists in NI. So I suggest it is you who are being dishonest.

Edited by Mrr T on Tuesday 12th February 12:22

[Mrr T]

Dr Jekyll said:

Border controls are one thing, we already have them. A hard border is quite another. Since no border is 100% enforced for anyone to argue that a soft border was tantamount to reducing tariffs would be a stretch.

The point about WTO rules being overridden by security considerations isn't just an argument, it's a fact. WTO specifically state that security considerations take precedence, it doesn't say anything about whether these considerations require more controls or fewer. If anything the WTO should be more amenable to fewer controls, the whole point of their existence is to reduce trade friction as far as possible.

So what border for goods will exist in NI? I mean the ones that monitors customs declaration, collects tariffs and VAT etc, etc. You know like the ones that exists for our trade with the ROTW.

You know that does not exists in NI.

Neither you or I are experts on trade but relying on an argument no one else has ever used in a trade dispute is a high risk strategy.

[anonymous-user]

Tuna said:

And the irony of ironies is that Corbyn and May are beginning to sing from the same song sheet. You can see the middle ground forming. This from the people who put down red lines and made sincere commitments to protect the UK. They're both desperate to plaster over the cracks in the hope it might give them a chance in the GE - and sod the consequences further down the line.

Didn't one of the arch-Leavers here say that May's greatest failing was not having sought cross-party consensus early doors? Well, perhaps this is a cae of "be careful what you wish for"...

[youngsyr]

Earthdweller said:

turbobloke said:

Today's headline: "Ireland now fears EU could ABANDON Dublin to save Brussels from no deal"

O'Really?

No surprise there .. I’ve said it many times on here that I think that will be the result

There will be a fudge to sort out the border issue - RoI isn't leaving the EU and the no-one wants the blame for reinstating border controls in N. Ireland.

Only question in my mind is whether the fudge is made in the days following a No Deal Brexit on 29th March or during an extension of Article 50/transition period and that looks like it's anyone's guess.

[king arthur]

Mrr T said:

king arthur said:

Bear in mind where the income from the tariffs ends up. At the moment 80% of it goes to the EU. From what I've read that is currently worth about £3.4B. According to John Redwood (I know maybe not the most impartial person but let's suppose he's somewhere near until anyone can find a better estimate) the additional tariffs that will be levied on imports from EU are estimated to be worth another £12B - but he says that due to changes in behaviour that would reduce to £10B.

So the government will have an extra £13 billion plus to play with after Brexit - this is nothing to do with EU contributions. They could well decide to use that for cuts in VAT. The extra money is after all effectively another form of tax in the first place.

Can I suggest when you read anything by JR you stop think and consider. He is not the brightest particularly about brexit.

The tariffs on UK goods entering the UK will be paid by UK buyers. The extra 10bn is just more tax in the UK.

Did you just read his name and ignore the rest? You've more or less repeated exactly what I said in my last sentence. If you don't think the figures are correct then please provide a more accurate source.

[youngsyr]

Mrr T said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Border controls are one thing, we already have them. A hard border is quite another. Since no border is 100% enforced for anyone to argue that a soft border was tantamount to reducing tariffs would be a stretch.

The point about WTO rules being overridden by security considerations isn't just an argument, it's a fact. WTO specifically state that security considerations take precedence, it doesn't say anything about whether these considerations require more controls or fewer. If anything the WTO should be more amenable to fewer controls, the whole point of their existence is to reduce trade friction as far as possible.

So what border for goods will exist in NI? I mean the ones that monitors customs declaration, collects tariffs and VAT etc, etc. You know like the ones that exists for our trade with the ROTW.

You know that does not exists in NI.

Neither you or I are experts on trade but relying on an argument no one else has ever used in a trade dispute is a high risk strategy.

I'd go further than that - if there was a solution for an electronic only border between two sovereign countries then it would already exist.

There is over $600 bn of trade each year between USA and Canada. If they haven't found a better solution in the century or so that they've been close allies then I rate the chances of the UK/RoI/EU finding one within the next two years at precisely zero.

[Dr Jekyll]

Mrr T said:

So what border for goods will exist in NI? I mean the ones that monitors customs declaration, collects tariffs and VAT etc, etc. You know like the ones that exists for our trade with the ROTW.

You know that does not exists in NI.

Neither you or I are experts on trade but relying on an argument no one else has ever used in a trade dispute is a high risk strategy.

It isn't a question of relying on a dubious argument. It's simply that IF someone complains about the lack of hard border infrastructure (who?, why?) and IF the WTO agrees (very doubtful) then we can invoke the WTO's own clause. There is nothing in that clause that says 'the Brits can't use it until someone else has first'.

In reality the WTO would be far more likely to take exception to a hard border being installed. The rules are that trade friction should be minimised, so they'd want to know what safety considerations meant we suddenly needed a hard border when we'd managed without one for 40 years with no problems.

[Camoradi]

Mrr T, thanks for your answer to my question above. Appreciated

[Mrr T]

king arthur said:

Mrr T said:

king arthur said:

Bear in mind where the income from the tariffs ends up. At the moment 80% of it goes to the EU. From what I've read that is currently worth about £3.4B. According to John Redwood (I know maybe not the most impartial person but let's suppose he's somewhere near until anyone can find a better estimate) the additional tariffs that will be levied on imports from EU are estimated to be worth another £12B - but he says that due to changes in behaviour that would reduce to £10B.

So the government will have an extra £13 billion plus to play with after Brexit - this is nothing to do with EU contributions. They could well decide to use that for cuts in VAT. The extra money is after all effectively another form of tax in the first place.

Can I suggest when you read anything by JR you stop think and consider. He is not the brightest particularly about brexit.

The tariffs on UK goods entering the UK will be paid by UK buyers. The extra 10bn is just more tax in the UK.

Did you just read his name and ignore the rest? You've more or less repeated exactly what I said in my last sentence. If you don't think the figures are correct then please provide a more accurate source.

Your post was not clear the UK was paying the tax. So I made an assumption you where suggesting this was new money not just extra tax in the UK. Apologies if my assumption was incorrect.

[JagLover]

slow_poke said:

JagLover said:

slow_poke said:

Are we back to the EU throwing Ireland under the bus again? Or have we never left that particular trope?.

Again with the emotive language. What is Ireland's interests as the UK leaves the EU?, strut around glorying in the opportunity to put one over the old enemy or practical measures to protect their economy?

What do you mean, again? I suppose I have used that expression before, alright. It's just an expression. I don't consider it emotive but if you do then fair enough. I won't gainsay you.

I daresay the Irish Govt's interest is to minimise and mitigate as much as possible adverse impacts of Brexit on their economy and society. Where have yo u seen any Irish officials strut and glorying? Citation needed, please.

As for the general Irish population, I daresay most of them are content leave the UK tearing itself apart needlessly and its Govt & Parliament hopelessly divided and inept without the Irish having to do anything except watch in awe.

Not you. The Express had a headline of the EU "abandoning" Ireland and you then use the expression "throwing them under the bus".

It is easy to lose sight of the fact that Ireland's interests is there being an amicable future relationship between the UK and the EU, not only due to their exports to the UK but the fact they use the UK as a land bridge to the continent. Despite how committed they are to the "backstop" it is not even clear that this is in Ireland's best interests due to the political chaos it is likely to create in one of their biggest export markets. There are a number of other possible outcomes that have a minimal impact on Ireland.

As for "strutting around" have you watched the Irish PM lately?

[Murph7355]

jonnyb said:

While not specifically mentioned that there will be no hard border in the GFA, its through the GFA that the "soft" border has come about. Just about everyone involved with the GFA, from the US Senator who chaired it, to the former head of the PSNI has stated that a return of a border could unravel the GFA. Just about every one excepts that the two issues are intrinsically linked.

You ask what the primary purpose of this issue is? I would argue that its peace on the island of Ireland, and subsequently on the mainland. Any return of border infrastructure to the island of Ireland would likely result in an upswing of paramilitary activity. Given that NI coveted to stay in, and along sectarian divides, with nationalists overwhelmingly voting to remain in the EU, one can see how the rebuilding of a hard border would inflame tensions that are already running high.

As has been said many times both sides do not want a border in the island, but there must be a border. An EU parliament briefing note already states that smuggling between the two nations across this border is "considerable", and that's with both nations in a customs union. That smuggling will only increase even further when we leave the customs union. Hardly conducive to "taking back control".

Either you aren't joining the dots for whatever reason or I'm not.

I agree with all those luminaries that building watchtowers, rolling out the razor wire and stationing fully armed Lynxes on that border would be unhelpful. Which is why I'm not saying that will happen.

All sides have said it will not. Do politicians lie? Of course. Are they lying about this? Not a prayer - the world will be watching, and importantly the world's ruling elite. They will not lie on this as their careers would be dead the second the first republican or unionist fire bomb was chucked, let alone deaths.

Does anybody materially give a st about the smuggling that happens now? How often have you ever seen it reported on and anything material done about it?

So 6.5m tinkers might be able to get cheap chicken or biscuits. So the Fernandes what! Get the goods checked in France if the rest of the EU is so bothered... But does all that smuggling go outside the borders of the island of Ireland now? I can't see it in any material sense. It's a red herring. A very small price to pay most would argue.

Oh, and "there must be a border". There already is one. There is absolutely no law that says it needs to be any bigger than it is. WTO? Nope, no stipulation. Just that we are being fair. If someone else complained about cheap chicken and biscuits - who would? And be the ones risking conflict? - then Ireland/EU/UK just go hand on hand to the WTO and get an exemption on the grounds of national security. IF it ever came to that.

EU rules about Borders? The EU changes its rules and breaks its rules more than I change my underpants. There is no rule that cannot be worked around.

[Tuna]

Greg66 said:

Tuna said:

And the irony of ironies is that Corbyn and May are beginning to sing from the same song sheet. You can see the middle ground forming. This from the people who put down red lines and made sincere commitments to protect the UK. They're both desperate to plaster over the cracks in the hope it might give them a chance in the GE - and sod the consequences further down the line.

Didn't one of the arch-Leavers here say that May's greatest failing was not having sought cross-party consensus early doors? Well, perhaps this is a cae of "be careful what you wish for"...

There's a huge difference between early doors consensus (which would have enabled some grown up negotiating), and last minute panic (which is what we're seeing now). Corbyn's in the near perfect position of only having to offer something 'slightly softer' than May to look like he's protecting his electorate whilst not endorsing a single thing she's offering. It's a perfect storm from the EU's point of view.

If they had agreed early on a negotiating position, May wouldn't have been able to run parallel discussions to Davis and switch tack half way through - the opposition would have had a field day. As it is, we've talked ourselves into the worst of all worlds.

I don't know about you, but in the negotiations I wanted our politicians to be protecting the country's interests, not their arses.

[king arthur]

Mrr T said:

Your post was not clear the UK was paying the tax. So I made an assumption you where suggesting this was new money not just extra tax in the UK. Apologies if my assumption was incorrect.

The portion of tariff revenue that currently goes to the EU will be "new money", of course the rest is effectively a tax on importers and therefore consumers as I said.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Mrr T said:

So what border for goods will exist in NI? I mean the ones that monitors customs declaration, collects tariffs and VAT etc, etc. You know like the ones that exists for our trade with the ROTW.

You know that does not exists in NI.

Neither you or I are experts on trade but relying on an argument no one else has ever used in a trade dispute is a high risk strategy.

Ireland is building border inspection points at Dublin Port.

I can help wondering if they feel they have to do that, why not at the NI border too?

[Murph7355]

youngsyr said:

I'd go further than that - if there was a solution for an electronic only border between two sovereign countries then it would already exist.

There is over $600 bn of trade each year between USA and Canada. If they haven't found a better solution in the century or so that they've been close allies then I rate the chances of the UK/RoI/EU finding one within the next two years at precisely zero.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Meanwhile, the "high risk strategy"... We'll derisk it by talking to the WTO. I would bet money that has already been done.

[Tuna]

youngsyr said:

I'd go further than that - if there was a solution for an electronic only border between two sovereign countries then it would already exist.

I'm still driving one of those old fashioned cars that are based on an engine designed over a century ago. Why aren't we all in electric cars, or flying drones to work?

youngsyr said:

There is over $600 bn of trade each year between USA and Canada. If they haven't found a better solution in the century or so that they've been close allies then I rate the chances of the UK/RoI/EU finding one within the next two years at precisely zero.

It's only in the last couple of years I've stopped having to physically sign for card purchases in the US. What you don't seem to appreciate is that existing solutions (that work in the circumstances they're designed for) hang around for decades. Why are the borders the way they are? Because adopting a wholesale new solution between the USA and Canada would cost billions, take more than a President's term to go from proposal to implementation and initially make only marginal differences to trade. In other words, there's next to no incentive to make big changes.

Infrastructure like this typically only makes small, incremental changes because they're easier, cheaper and safer for the politicians that sign them off. They can spend decades just in the procurement process for a different colour of barrier and go home knowing they've done a 'good job'.

On top of that, the technology to make this sort of change has only been genuinely available in the last five to ten years. I can now spin up a globally redundant cloud service that can process a million transactions a minute from the comfort of my desk - and I can be confident that 99.9% of the people who need to access it can do so from their phones, laptops and tablets. And it costs close to nothing to do so.

Typically, government procurement cycles mean that this sort of capability is only rolled out one or two decades after it's commercially proven.

So, the idea that because the USA hasn't rebuilt its border, there isn't a better solution available is absolute nonsense.

[Earthdweller]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Mrr T said:

So what border for goods will exist in NI? I mean the ones that monitors customs declaration, collects tariffs and VAT etc, etc. You know like the ones that exists for our trade with the ROTW.

You know that does not exists in NI.

Neither you or I are experts on trade but relying on an argument no one else has ever used in a trade dispute is a high risk strategy.

Ireland is building border inspection points at Dublin Port.

I can help wondering if they feel they have to do that, why not at the NI border too?

Dublin port is expanding .. bigger ships .. more ships .. ferry operators abandoning Rosslare and transferring routes to Dublin etc

Now .. how much of this expansion IS for new custom controls .. who knows ?

[SpeckledJim]

youngsyr said:

I'd go further than that - if there was a solution for an electronic only border between two sovereign countries then it would already exist.

youngsyr said:

There is over $600 bn of trade each year between USA and Canada. If they haven't found a better solution in the century or so that they've been close allies then I rate the chances of the UK/RoI/EU finding one within the next two years at precisely zero.

This is the exact same logical fallacy that you brought to bear the other day with your 'Greece and Italy haven't collapsed already so they won't collapse in the future' treatise.

Do you think perhaps you're not very imaginative when it comes to envisaging change?

[Tuna]

Trimble has announced a legal challenge to the backstop. Defendants may be Karen Bradley, David Lidington or the Prime Minister

Lord Trimble said:

Our clients as claimants will, if necessary, allege in grounds to be drafted that:

(i) The defendants are in breach of article sixth of the Union with Ireland Act 1800, in that
– according to the Attorney General – Northern Ireland is being treated differently from Great Britain;

(ii) The defendants are in breach of provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, providing for the interlocked government of Northern Ireland, in that no hard border has not been put into the British-Irish intergovernmental conference for bilateral negotiation; and

(iii) Subject to considerations of justiciability, article 30(2) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that the Belfast agreement prevails, on the question of no hard border, even while the UK is negotiating with the EU regarding withdrawal.

[Toaster]

Troubleatmill said:

Turfy said:

How many ferry companies do not own their ferries?

That was my point. You don’t need to.
You just need to be able to rent available ones.

I’m sure there are airlines renting other companies planes (with a nice new livery added)

ROFL don't try and defend Chris Grayling or this government over that Ferry fIasco, Seaborne freight that had no money, no employees, no ships, no track record, no employees, no ports, one telephone line no website or sailing schedual. Two of the directors wouldn't pass normal due diligence process, one of the directors is under investigation by a government department and on top of that Eurotunnel is suing the government over this procurement process.In addition they never looked at Seabourne Freights T's and C's if you recall they were lifted form a Pizza company

And these clowns created the Brexit mess in the first place..........and people think we can negotiate........

I going to write a letter Dear Chris I have a rowing boat that can be used to ferry freight across the channel could I have 800K please LOL

Edited by Toaster on Tuesday 12th February 13:30