|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
AIUI, under WTO rules a transition period cannot be indefinite, and IIRC it's limited to no more than 10 years. But, I don't think anyone wants a transition period that long. The current proposal is a necessity because the details of what the UK government wants from Brexit had not been defined in detail prior to setting the clock running when they triggered Article 50 - leaving what was already a very short period to negotiate for that position impossibly short since they needed to work out their negotiating position within that period as well. Of course, the UK government should have defined what they wanted from Brexit before calling a referendum, let alone triggering A50, which is water long since under the bridge.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I appreciate this is ignorant, but my searching doesn't reveal the answer.
It is said that countries who don't have a trade deal revert to WTO rules. But what's a trade deal?
Is it possible to have a one-sided arrangement? Say if the UK unilaterally stated that it wasn't going to have a tariff regime for all products from the EU and that no customs duty checks would be made on incoming produce no matter what the EU did in return. Would that scenario mean that the UK was breaking WTO rules?
Or how about if the UK simply declared that it was expecting to continue trading with countries on terms agreed when it was part of the EU. Can it do that? Just say that we're not part of the EU but we are going to consider (say) the trade deal with Mexico as binding and continue on with it.
The part that I don't understand about the way the EU agrees things is that I thought it was a union of states, and that therefore any agreement between the EU and other countries might be agreed centrally but is actually bilateral trade agreements between sovereign states of the EU and other countries. Is that wrong?
Of course this could be impossible to do; after Brexit, the UK is hardly going to want to continue with third country trade deals which explicitly state that they're going to be conducted under the auspices of common EU rules.
But anyway, I'd be interested if anyone can point me to something to help my understanding of trade deals.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is it possible to have a one-sided arrangement? Say if the UK unilaterally stated that it wasn't going to have a tariff regime for all products from the EU and that no customs duty checks would be made on incoming produce no matter what the EU did in return. Would that scenario mean that the UK was breaking WTO rules?
In my (limited) understanding, this turns the UK into Singapore: a free trade zone.
The problem is that this might be great news for EU exporters, but doesn't stop the EU or anywhere else imposing tariffs on UK exports.
quote:
The part that I don't understand about the way the EU agrees things is that I thought it was a union of states, and that therefore any agreement between the EU and other countries might be agreed centrally but is actually bilateral trade agreements between sovereign states of the EU and other countries. Is that wrong?
Again in my limited understanding, it is wrong. The EU has an agreement with third parties as a united trading bloc. One of the conditions of being in the trading bloc is: no side deals with trading partners involved.
Somebody will no doubt be along soon to tell me I'm wrong.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I appreciate this is ignorant, but my searching doesn't reveal the answer.
It is said that countries who don't have a trade deal revert to WTO rules. But what's a trade deal?
There are some good videos on the web, I'll see if I can find one but basically it's not about tariffs, it's about regulatory harmonization.
Tariffs are easy, regulations are tricky. You can raise or lower tariffs pretty much at will. They do feature in trade deals as nations agree to the same tariff levels and hence avoid a competitive advantage for one side or the other. But, as I said, that's the easy bit.
This is the example I tend to use but it applies to all sectors of the economy.
Let's say you want to buy a car. How do you know that the car is safe? For example, do you know if the brakes will work to an acceptable level?
The answer is yes, in the UK (as in other developed countries) there are minimal legal standards for brakes. This is an example of a regulation that manufacturers have to meet. The free-market zealots will tell you that no law is needed as in a perfect market, consumers will only buy the safest cars and thus drive up standards.
This is nonsense for two main reasons; firstly most consumers (myself included) would have no idea of how to tell if the brakes work well enough or not. (Asymmetry of information). Moreover, people need transport and do not always have absolute freedom in terms of how much they can afford but if you buy a cheap car with dodgy brakes, it's also me that you are putting in danger.
Hence developed countries all have regulatory frameworks for product safety. I don't know how many regulations car manufacturers have to meet but I bet it's dozens.
So, let's say you are a car maker in Britain and you want to sell cars in Britain. That's easy, just meet the legal standards for the UK and you're fine. Moreover Acne Inc of Mexico cannot make cars there and sell them in the UK without meeting the same standards.
But I also might want to sell my cars in Germany or France. But their rules are slightly different, which means I have to manufacture cars to 3 different sets of rules, this adds a lot of cost to me. Economists will tell you how it's not a zero sum game and more trade makes everyone (on average) better off. Hence it makes sense for Britain, France and Germany to have some sort of trade agreement about what standards we will use for cars. Thus a car built in any of the three countries is made to same standards and can be sold in any of the three. That's a trade deal (in this case on car specifications). And yes, there are variations between countries within these rules - look at which side the steering wheel is on...
In essence (as far as I understand it), there are essentially two approaches to this: 1) You go for the lowest common denominator (cut red tape!!! or 2) you cooperate to come up with rules that everyone agrees on. It takes more time to do 2) but it benefits consumers considerably. It has other advantages as well - by having agreed standards across the 3 countries, you have economies of scale in terms of implementation and testing. In the past decade there has been much talk about EU-US trade deals and much of it is to do with the US wanted the EU to lower food-safety standards to US levels (this is an example of 1.) - to which the EU said no (eventually).
The EU, for all its faults (and there are many) is basically a set of trading regulations agreed on by 28 countries. It is the ultimate in trade deals.
Two important points of note here: 1. Britain, France and Germany collectively dominate the EU; with veto powers on many issues and qualified majority voting on others, almost nothing happens in the EU unless Britain, Germany AND France want it to. 2. Any trade deal - by definition - means a dilution of sovereignty. We don't get to tell the other 27 what the standards for car brakes should be - the EU wide standard is one we all agreed on and all have to abide by if the system is going to work.
So, anyone who tells you we are leaving the EU to regain our sovereignty and to have free-trade deals with the rest of the world (often in the same breath) is either a fool or a liar.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
is either a fool or a liar.
or, both.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
is either a fool or a liar.
or, both.
Problem is, that was said by many at all points of the political spectrum (and none) before June 2016 and it made no difference then. We can hardly expect any better now that the foxes are running the henhouse.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I appreciate this is ignorant, but my searching doesn't reveal the answer.
It is said that countries who don't have a trade deal revert to WTO rules. But what's a trade deal?
I don't think there is a strict definition beyond it having to involve multiple parties, i.e you can't unilaterally lower tariffs/non-tariff barriers to one set of trading partners without also extending it to everyone else in the WTO (MFN) (leaving aside that the UK is not currently a member of the WTO directly)
So the scenario of the UK dropping tariffs to EU products unilaterally - outside a formal bilateral arrangement would not be possible.
quote:
The part that I don't understand about the way the EU agrees things is that I thought it was a union of states, and that therefore any agreement between the EU and other countries might be agreed centrally but is actually bilateral trade agreements between sovereign states of the EU and other countries. Is that wrong?
Yes it's wrong. The EU negotiates as an entire block - the legal entities that are signatories to any agreement are the EU and the other trade bloc/country.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I really don't see this either. I have trouble imagining the political viability of a transition period of a couple of years, let alone remaining "in transition" semi-permanently.
And yet this appears at this point to be the published position of the UK government:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/21/brexit-transition-period-open-ended-uk-eu-position-paper
I assume the driving forces are the fear that a cliff-edge transition will have an impact on how the negotiations are carried out and a fear that the some issues won't be uncovered until very late in the day.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
The EU, for all its faults (and there are many) is basically a set of trading regulations agreed on by 28 countries. It is the ultimate in trade deals.
AIUI, a lot of EU regulations have been adopted because they were adopted first by the WTO. So even if the UK wanted regulatory divergence from the EU it would be stymied because it would still need to comply with WTO rules. The UK could rule in favour of flammable children's toys and furniture but the manufacturers thereof would still end up making inflammable toys and sofas because they needed to flog them to foreign countries. If you tolerate this, then your children will be next, to coin a phrase, but not their children who will be protected by the relevant EU and WTO rules.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Another substantial proportion of EU regulations exist because the UK pushed for them. Because we are the EU, it's not some external body dictating things to us.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
The EU, for all its faults (and there are many) is basically a set of trading regulations agreed on by 28 countries. It is the ultimate in trade deals.
AIUI, a lot of EU regulations have been adopted because they were adopted first by the WTO. So even if the UK wanted regulatory divergence from the EU it would be stymied because it would still need to comply with WTO rules. The UK could rule in favour of flammable children's toys and furniture but the manufacturers thereof would still end up making inflammable toys and sofas because they needed to flog them to foreign countries. If you tolerate this, then your children will be next, to coin a phrase, but not their children who will be protected by the relevant EU and WTO rules.
I'm pretty sure the WTO itself doesn't have anything like product safety standards.
This page on the WTO website describes the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement:
quote:
The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT) tries to ensure that regulations, standards, testing and certification procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles.
However, the agreement also recognizes countries’ rights to adopt the standards they consider appropriate — for example, for human, animal or plant life or health, for the protection of the environment or to meet other consumer interests. Moreover, members are not prevented from taking measures necessary to ensure their standards are met. But that is counterbalanced with disciplines.
It's not about setting the specific content of (e.g.) product safety standards, but ensuring that any such standards aren't used as an unfair trade barrier. A WTO member country may adopt high or low safety standards for products sold within its borders, as long as they apply equally to domestic and imported goods.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
The UK could rule in favour of flammable children's toys and furniture but the manufacturers thereof would still end up making inflammable toys and sofas because they needed to flog them to foreign countries.
I don't think that word means what you think it means ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I've stayed off this thread for a bit because I found it too depressing and the issues too close to home to post sensibly. I've watched from afar while the place of my birth slowly tears itself apart and returns to the kind of entrenchment I remember as a teenager. The Brexiteers scoffed at the scare stories of the Remoaners but now seem to take a positive delight in declaring the Good Friday Agreement as dead. The deal with the devil still stands with a party holding the reigns that didn't even get elected to the position. The rule of democracy seriously eroded and the devolved institutions undermined and in tatters, now vacant and defunct. The fracture lines of society in Northern Ireland have never been so clear, cemented by despair and growing anger. All the while, the Tories mutter back and forth about fantasy trade deals. Speeches are made with no mention of how they might rescue a slide into terrorism and civil unrest. The ignorant belief that peace just happens rather than something that must be worked at in order to sustain seems to hold blind sway. Still we have no idea how a border might work in a land where a past border poisoned two nations. Nobody has a clue. Nothing concrete decided; just lots of talk of imagined trade deals. At least the DUP saw this whole charade for what it was: those who aren't white, protestant, loyalist and favouring an insular nationalism can just get lost or go elsewhere. Meanwhile we all join the politicians and dither over cold economics while the social aspects rot and fester.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I have to admit that while the economic cock-ups being recommended by various pro-Brexit politicians didn't surprise me all that much, since a lot of them are not very bright and not very well informed, the attitude towards the GFA (if what I am reading about it is correct), goes beyond that towards insanity and irresponsibility.
I suppose the reasons for this attack on GFA are not all that hard to find, since it scuppers a hard Brexit. No doubt you can add to that a kind of English xenophobia - why worry about Ireland? But of course, N. Ireland is British. Oh well.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I have to admit that while the economic cock-ups being recommended by various pro-Brexit politicians didn't surprise me all that much, since a lot of them are not very bright and not very well informed,
I have to disagree. Many of them are very intelligent and well-informed. They know exactly what they are doing, but they are greedy and downright nasty.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
At least the DUP saw this whole charade for what it was: those who aren't white, protestant, loyalist and favouring an insular nationalism can just get lost or go elsewhere.
My impression is that the DUP at present is quite comfortable with the possibility of a hard border (which in the worst case they'll blame on the intransigence of the EU) and direct rule (which they'll blame on the intransigence of Sinn Fein).
They are being allowed to run with the policy because of the incompetence of the current government coupled with the sheer venality and sophistry of the various Brexiters.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I think this from the Independent yesterday is good on the Oxfam brouhaha.
I still think the whole thing is being worked up by the government and the Brexiteer media for the pernicious purposes I've already mentioned.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Err, I don't see an immediate connection with Brexit. Are you sure you didn't mean to post on the George Bell thread? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Or "Aid workers and Prostitution"?
I'm also puzzled!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
I think Enoch's point is that these whipped-up scandal stories are part of a distraction operation.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I'm going to expose my ignorance but I'm realising that I don't completely understand the relationship between customs checks and regulatory alignment.
I thought it worked like this:
Widgets in Ricardusland have to be able to withstand pressures of up to 400kPa, whereas in Neighbourland the regulations only require 300kPa. The border checks are required to make sure that substandard Neighbourland widgets don't enter Ricardusland. But:
1. Surely, for most items that are subject to technical regulatory restrictions, the border agency itself wouldn't be able to check whether the widget was in alignment with the rules? According to Mr Davies, checks on the US-Canada border take a matter of minutes. That's not enough time to check that the Neighbourland widget crossing the border can withstand 400kPa pressure.
2. There are customs checks across the Norway-Sweden border. But since Norway is subject to EU rules, surely anything coming into the EU from Norway is already OK from a regulatory perspective?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
Based on my own experience from long ago (I worked for a while for a company which exported electronic products), most of the work to prove regulatory alignment goes on behind the scenes.
As a production engineer, I would prepare extremely detailed reports on the characteristics of the devices in question (they were custom-made) which I would then fax (this was pre-email) to the company's agent in, say, the U.S., who would put the data in the form required by U.S. customs to prove that the product was safe and compliant so that it could cross the border.
I was a technical person and never personally involved in the paperwork and bureaucracy, but there seemed to be a lot of it.
AIR, even in those days the process of exporting to Europe was considerably easier as the company was inspected and certified as complying with the agreed standards for that industry.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I have to admit that while the economic cock-ups being recommended by various pro-Brexit politicians didn't surprise me all that much, since a lot of them are not very bright and not very well informed,
I have to disagree. Many of them are very intelligent and well-informed. They know exactly what they are doing, but they are greedy and downright nasty.
I strongly suspect that Rees-Mogg's principle motivation is to end pesky EU meddling in the tax havens used by his "wealth management" (air quotes) company.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
1. Surely, for most items that are subject to technical regulatory restrictions, the border agency itself wouldn't be able to check whether the widget was in alignment with the rules?
As Rocinante has said, the majority of the work has been done by the exporter and shipping agent. Customs will simply check that the paperwork is in order. Customs will regularly hold goods until the paperwork is cleared up.
quote:
checks on the US-Canada border take a matter of minutes.
The point being that if you have a cross Channel ferry of trucks and cars, 2-3 minutes per vehicle x number of vehicles = hours. Unless you invest in customs facilities to provide capacity to process multiple vehicles at once. It's a lot easier on a land border than a ferry terminal where work comes in batches with pressure to get everyone through in minutes. The Netherlands has started recruiting and training almost 1000 more customs officers they anticipate needing. The number of extra border officials the UK will need is greater, but I haven't seen any recruitment campaign here.
quote:
2. There are customs checks across the Norway-Sweden border. But since Norway is subject to EU rules, surely anything coming into the EU from Norway is already OK from a regulatory perspective?
I guess it's possible that there still needs to be that confirmation that things comply. The EU institutions that regulate standards won't operate outside the EU even if other national regulations are the same. At present UK agencies are EU agencies, and have to be treated as such - post Brexit there will be a need for EU agencies to also confirm compliance.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
2. There are customs checks across the Norway-Sweden border. But since Norway is subject to EU rules, surely anything coming into the EU from Norway is already OK from a regulatory perspective?
Sweden is a member of the EU Customs Unions, whereas Norway (and other members of the EFTA aren't). The CU members have a common set of tariffs for good entering from outside the union.
For the most part, what's checked at this border is paperwork, in the case of goods with differing tariffs, they also may have duty applied to them.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
1. Surely, for most items that are subject to technical regulatory restrictions, the border agency itself wouldn't be able to check whether the widget was in alignment with the rules? According to Mr Davies, checks on the US-Canada border take a matter of minutes. That's not enough time to check that the Neighbourland widget crossing the border can withstand 400kPa pressure.
They will generally provide paperwork certifying this is the case from a regulatory agency that is recognised under the terms of the FTA. In the case of the EU the the ultimate arbiter and court of appeal for these agencies if the ECJ [Which May has made a totemistic part of regaining control].
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Exactly, chris. It all hangs together only if there is a consistent, trustworthy, arbiter. Take that away and it's not clear how anything works (other than significantly more slowly).
The totemic, dogmatic, sticking points of Brexiteers get in the way every time.
[ 24. February 2018, 19:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
2. There are customs checks across the Norway-Sweden border. But since Norway is subject to EU rules, surely anything coming into the EU from Norway is already OK from a regulatory perspective?
According to this article from Politico, Norway's higher tariffs on alcohol (possible because Norway isn't a member of the EU customs union) make smuggling from Sweden attractive:
quote:
Norway has the closest possible trading relationship with the EU without actually being part of the bloc, but its border with Sweden is still a haven for smugglers that requires an alert and nimble border force. And there were 229,286 checks on vehicles crossing in 2016, up slightly on the previous two years.
That suggests, among other things, that the U.K.’s vision of a frictionless (and invisible) Northern Irish border will be difficult to achieve.
[...]
“The drivers don’t usually spend long in the customs office itself,” Nilsson said. “But on busy afternoons they can be parked in queues on the road for hours waiting for their turn,” he said.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
*snip*
I thought it worked like this:
Widgets in Ricardusland have to be able to withstand pressures of up to 400kPa, whereas in Neighbourland the regulations only require 300kPa. The border checks are required to make sure that substandard Neighbourland widgets don't enter Ricardusland. But:
1. Surely, for most items that are subject to technical regulatory restrictions, the border agency itself wouldn't be able to check whether the widget was in alignment with the rules? According to Mr Davies, checks on the US-Canada border take a matter of minutes. That's not enough time to check that the Neighbourland widget crossing the border can withstand 400kPa pressure.
*snip*
Most trade between Canada and its Southern Neighbour happens within the context of NAFTA (as well as previous agreements, such as the FTA and the Autopact). With rare exceptions, standards have been agreed through decades of bureaucrat-years. Companies have divisions preparing the paperwork and their shipments do take a few minutes, no more.
Unless cross-border trade happens within a customs or free trade agreement, a few minutes at the border is a joke.
I grew up on the border and can assure you that all sorts of other shipments, as well as the movement of people, take well more than a few minutes. The last times I crossed the border, once at Ogdensburg and the other time at Cornwall, one line of trucks went sailing through, and the other would be taking several hours and was backed up considerably-- most of the trucks were going to be thoroughly checked for cocaine and firearms (as a side issue, many US truckers lose their handguns at the border).
Major points such as Niagara Falls and Windsor in Ontario, and Surrey in BC, do not go that smoothly, and border-crossers on busy weekends should set an hour aside and sometimes more.
Unless there is a customs union, or unless the two states agree to pretend that there be no border (as UK citizenship law pretends that Irish citizens are not foreigners), the crossing at Newry will soon feature six-plus lanes, a very large parking lot, and jobs for many many many customs officers.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
That enables the Brexiteers to claim that leaving the EC has created jobs, just as they said it would!
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It might be good if they started actually creating those jobs though. The Netherlands has it right, there will need to be more border staff and it will take time to train them (and, there's a limit to how many people they can take through training at a time). The exact number will depend on what form of Brexit our government eventually goes for, the timing will probably depend on the duration of the transition period.
We will need those people in a year, since any form of transition that is not full membership of the customs union and single market will require more staff. We won't have them, because the UK hasn't started doing anything to my knowledge. But, I'm sure the Brexiteers will find some way to blame the EU for lorry parks at the ports because there are insufficient UK staff to manage the customs clearances.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
That enables the Brexiteers to claim that leaving the EC has created jobs, just as they said it would!
I think at this point it is clear that they'll claim whatever they like and won't be freighted with things like mere facts.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Thanks to all. I think that clears up not only my question but the follow-up questions I'd thought of as well.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We will need those people in a year, since any form of transition that is not full membership of the customs union and single market will require more staff. We won't have them, because the UK hasn't started doing anything to my knowledge. But, I'm sure the Brexiteers will find some way to blame the EU for lorry parks at the ports because there are insufficient UK staff to manage the customs clearances.
Presumably you would technically speaking only need them on the UK side if British standards became higher after Brexit?
If Britain relaxes its standards, then by definition anything that meets EU standards will meet UK standards as well, so there would be no need to check them on entry to the UK.
(If this is Mr Davis' reasoning then I think I have just proved he is lying when he says he wants British regulatory standards to be in a race to the top. I'm sure the whole thread is shocked to hear this.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It looks as if Labour are going to support a customs union, (but not the customs union, I suppose), and some journos are speculating that May could get defeated, if enough soft Tories line up with Labour.
But the term 'customs union' is now very elastic. It could mean high obligation and high access, a la Norway, or low obligations and low access (Canada). May wants low obligations and high access, I suppose, which will not wash.
Of course, it's not impossible to have a customs union with EU, I think Turkey does, details unknown.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Presumably you would technically speaking only need them on the UK side if British standards became higher after Brexit?
If Britain relaxes its standards, then by definition anything that meets EU standards will meet UK standards as well, so there would be no need to check them on entry to the UK.
Sure, as long as either set perfectly overlaps the other.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, it's not impossible to have a customs union with EU, I think Turkey does, details unknown.
Here are the "menu options" as I understood them last July. Turkey is option 4: quote:
in a customs union with the EU (...); no single market or 'four freedoms', no ECJ, but no third-party free trade deals allowed
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
This week's Economist makes the case for membership of the EEA (option 2 in my linked-to list: Norway, notably) but then you need at least some sort of a border with NI.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Brexit and Montenegro
From that: quote:
This week, Brussels will publish its draft withdrawal agreement, a legally binding text under which the UK will, in effect, commit itself to keeping Northern Ireland in the single market and customs union, unless a future free trade deal or a magical technological solution manages somehow to avoid a hard border.
That's why I posted earlier that if I had to live in the UK, from a Brexit point of view Northern Ireland is where I would move to.
While it could end up suffering the most, Northern Ireland could conceivably have the closest thing to EU membership likely after Brexit.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
Any responses so far to Corbyn's speech on Brexit and the common market? I'm from the US but follow British news and culture closely. The speech seemed well thought-out, quite pragmatic, and politically astute. I wish Britain well with all my heart. Would love to hear thoughts from British Shipmates
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
Any responses so far to Corbyn's speech on Brexit and the common market? I'm from the US but follow British news and culture closely. The speech seemed well thought-out, quite pragmatic, and politically astute. I wish Britain well with all my heart. Would love to hear thoughts from British Shipmates
The right wing are saying that it's a betrayal, not quite sure of who. Some journalists are pointing out that it's not all that different from Mrs May's 'customs arrangement'; of course, the devil is in the detail. It's not really clear what either means, unless it is spelled out, for example, on immigration. And non-tariff barriers - but again, we need more detail, although Corbyn was talking about the Mini whose parts travel back and forth, requiring no barriers.
Obviously, Labour is making a move against May, hoping that the govt will be squeezed by her own soft Brexiteers. Then again, the pro-Brexit lobby will hope to tarnish Corbyn as selling out the referendum. Result? - no idea.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
Any responses so far to Corbyn's speech on Brexit and the common market? I'm from the US but follow British news and culture closely. The speech seemed well thought-out, quite pragmatic, and politically astute. I wish Britain well with all my heart. Would love to hear thoughts from British Shipmates
#CorbynnSpeech is trending on Twitter but it's not very informative. Some Extreme mud-slinging.
As I intimated a few page ago, I think Corbyn and the Labour leadership have adopted an incrementalist strategy.
Corbyn was accused of 'undermining Brexit.' The point is that Brexit undermines itself and in order to have any hope of moving forward in a sensible way, the Brexit lunacy needs to be seen for what it is. There is no doubt that Rees-Mogg and Davies and Boris and Farage etc. etc. will look to scape goat everyone and everything and will never admit to the damage of Brexit.
If Corbyn said we would stay in the customs union 6 months ago, I would have supported the policy but I'm not sure it would be good tactics. Since December it's been clear that the customs union is vital for Northern Ireland - by saying so now, hopefully Corbyn can bring people with him.
Similarly, He will come out for staying in the single market at some point.
This is a political high-wire act with no guarantee of anything...
YMMV
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It's a small step towards the inevitable. The EU is too important an organisation not to be a full member of. The more the government and opposition consider the options then the more they will realise what an impossible mess anything other than retaining full EU membership will be. Though both have bought into the story that a glorified anti-democratic opinion poll is a meaningful measure of the will of the people. So, we're going to scramble around for a crap solution to squaring a circle, try to head towards a least-bad negotiating position and then find that it's impossible for the EU to accept it.
Meanwhile the Tory Party will implode. Labour won't be far behind. The country will be in an economic mess and we'll be facing a general election with several new political parties - a pro-EU Conservative, an anti-EU Conservative with really rabid anti-EU revitalising UKIP (or forming an alternative far-right party if UKIP are irredeemable), with a pro-EU Labour and an anti-EU Labour. Many "safe" Labour and Conservative seats will go to one of the splinter parties from those two, the LibDems and Greens will pick up seats, several smaller parties will do well. There'll be no clear winner, a hung-Parliament to beat all hung-Parliaments and a Constitutional crisis. But, Phoenix-like a new political system will rise from the ashes, the country will need to learn that Government will need to be on a broad consensus across parties, the days of one party so dominating that they can plunge the country through a pointless and stupid referendum to resolve internal party bickering will be gone. It may be the end of the United Kingdom as regional parties are formed and hold the balance of power, maybe a genuine federal nation as power is devolved outwards, maybe independence for nations or even regions. So, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
If Corbyn said we would stay in the customs union 6 months ago, I would have supported the policy but I'm not sure it would be good tactics.
Yes, I think that's exactly right, 6 months ago the idea of a 'customs union' wouldn't have any political salience at all, and now it has enough that his speech has has shifted the terms of the debate somewhat.
This is an issue when you can garner the limits of someones knowledge by the point at which they start quibbling over different articles, or the use of new terminology to differentiate from existing arrangements/deals. In that sense Corbyn isn't unique - and there was a fair amount of fudge in his speech.
On the other hand he has forced the most ardent Brexiters to defend their own positions in terms they are likely to regret (Boris Johnson and Rees Mogg), with Rees Mogg raising the spectre of a TTIP like deal with the US that threatens the NHS.
He's also created some space between the business community and the Tory party in the minds of the public - which may well be useful electorally.
quote:
This is a political high-wire act with no guarantee of anything...
Indeed, and I can understand the caution with which Labour moves. The commentariat who castigates them for bottling it now would be foaming at the mouth about 'betrayal' had he made firmer steps in a remain direction.
Brexit is a by product of UKs toxic media which exists to turn outrage into cash - the UK may by good fortunate escape this particular predicament, but I have no doubt that it'll continue to weld together bandwagons of ever more nasty nutters.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
[W]ith Rees Mogg raising the spectre of a TTIP like deal with the US that threatens the NHS.
But am I right in thinking that, under Corbyn's proposal, Britain wouldn't be able to object to an TTIP-like deal concluded between the EU and US (and which would then impact Britain)?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Because you think the UK without the EU will be able to negotiate a better one?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Because you think the UK without the EU will be able to negotiate a better one?
I was thinking (if I've understood this correctly) that it's a little odd to raise the spectre of a horrible policy being negotiated by your own side if one's own policy is to allow some other people to negotiate your trade policy for you. Because then you don't know what you'll get.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
If the UK had remained in the EU it would have been able to add its voice to those around the table.
As far as I understand it, the TTIP is dead in the water due to objections from EU Member States.
Of course, being part of the EU means not always getting what you want, and it is perfactly true that if you are one party in a bilateral trade deal you are free to define your negotiating position unilaterally* without interference from pesky foreigners.
However, believing that, given the relative size of their economies, the UK will somehow have more bargaining power with the US than it would have as part of a bloc of 28 countries is, I fear, bordering on the delusional.
==
*just as we see from the ease at which the UK government has been able to swiftly and clearly set down its unilateral negotiating position with the EU-27 ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
[ 26. February 2018, 21:18: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
