Discussion:
No Deal - was I wrong?
(too old to reply)
James Harris
2017-10-11 10:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am
I missing something?

To explain, AISI No Deal means "no trade deal". The UK and the EU would
still get through the withdrawal agreement, however imperfectly. They
would agree citizens' rights. They would arrange that flights could
still pass from one side to the other. They would agree the handling of
atomic material. They would arrange lots of other ways to interact on
less favourable terms than now. And they would probably come up with an
implementation plan. The EU has no reason to reject any of this as it
satisfies their main political imperative that the UK must be worse off
as a result of leaving.

But I've not heard that from any politician. In fact, Keir Starmer
questioned the government a few months ago on a cliff edge where flights
were grounded and queues clogged ports and so on. No one corrected him.

So am I going mad? Would the two sides seriously let No Deal become the
latter scenario?

If not, why are politicians not speaking about sensible arrangements to
migrate to No Deal?
--
James Harris
Incubus
2017-10-11 10:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am
I missing something?
To explain, AISI No Deal means "no trade deal". The UK and the EU would
still get through the withdrawal agreement, however imperfectly. They
would agree citizens' rights. They would arrange that flights could
still pass from one side to the other. They would agree the handling of
atomic material. They would arrange lots of other ways to interact on
less favourable terms than now. And they would probably come up with an
implementation plan. The EU has no reason to reject any of this as it
satisfies their main political imperative that the UK must be worse off
as a result of leaving.
But I've not heard that from any politician. In fact, Keir Starmer
questioned the government a few months ago on a cliff edge where flights
were grounded and queues clogged ports and so on. No one corrected him.
So am I going mad? Would the two sides seriously let No Deal become the
latter scenario?
If not, why are politicians not speaking about sensible arrangements to
migrate to No Deal?
I think because they believe that if they walk away with no agreement in
place, it makes them look bad.
abelard
2017-10-11 10:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Incubus
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am
I missing something?
To explain, AISI No Deal means "no trade deal". The UK and the EU would
still get through the withdrawal agreement, however imperfectly. They
would agree citizens' rights. They would arrange that flights could
still pass from one side to the other. They would agree the handling of
atomic material. They would arrange lots of other ways to interact on
less favourable terms than now. And they would probably come up with an
implementation plan. The EU has no reason to reject any of this as it
satisfies their main political imperative that the UK must be worse off
as a result of leaving.
But I've not heard that from any politician. In fact, Keir Starmer
questioned the government a few months ago on a cliff edge where flights
were grounded and queues clogged ports and so on. No one corrected him.
So am I going mad? Would the two sides seriously let No Deal become the
latter scenario?
If not, why are politicians not speaking about sensible arrangements to
migrate to No Deal?
I think because they believe that if they walk away with no agreement in
place, it makes them look bad.
you might suppose they were placing themselves a woman spurned!
--
www.abelard.org
Yellow
2017-10-11 11:06:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:18:32 +0100, James Harris <james.harris.1
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am
I missing something?
To explain, AISI No Deal means "no trade deal". The UK and the EU would
still get through the withdrawal agreement, however imperfectly. They
would agree citizens' rights. They would arrange that flights could
still pass from one side to the other. They would agree the handling of
atomic material. They would arrange lots of other ways to interact on
less favourable terms than now. And they would probably come up with an
implementation plan. The EU has no reason to reject any of this as it
satisfies their main political imperative that the UK must be worse off
as a result of leaving.
But I've not heard that from any politician. In fact, Keir Starmer
questioned the government a few months ago on a cliff edge where flights
were grounded and queues clogged ports and so on. No one corrected him.
So am I going mad? Would the two sides seriously let No Deal become the
latter scenario?
If not, why are politicians not speaking about sensible arrangements to
migrate to No Deal?
Just seen the news and Philip Hammond was quoted as saying he is not
going to spend any money preparing for no deal.
Vidcapper
2017-10-11 11:18:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am
I missing something?
To explain, AISI No Deal means "no trade deal". The UK and the EU would
still get through the withdrawal agreement, however imperfectly. They
would agree citizens' rights. They would arrange that flights could
still pass from one side to the other. They would agree the handling of
atomic material. They would arrange lots of other ways to interact on
less favourable terms than now. And they would probably come up with an
implementation plan. The EU has no reason to reject any of this as it
satisfies their main political imperative that the UK must be worse off
as a result of leaving.
But they would be too, given the loss of our financial contribution.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
tim...
2017-10-11 12:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be the
disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned at the
absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't imagine
why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am I missing
something?
To explain, AISI No Deal means "no trade deal".
nope.

It means no deal at all - no agreement on anything at all.
The UK and the EU would still get through the withdrawal agreement, however
imperfectly. They would agree citizens' rights. They would arrange that
flights could still pass from one side to the other. They would agree the
handling of atomic material. They would arrange lots of other ways to
interact on less favourable terms than now. And they would probably come up
with an implementation plan. The EU has no reason to reject any of this as
it satisfies their main political imperative that the UK must be worse off
as a result of leaving.
But I've not heard that from any politician. In fact, Keir Starmer
questioned the government a few months ago on a cliff edge where flights
were grounded and queues clogged ports and so on. No one corrected him.
So am I going mad? Would the two sides seriously let No Deal become the
latter scenario?
we might have no choice.

but the EU does - so if it does end up there they will have created it
themselves.
If not, why are politicians not speaking about sensible arrangements to
migrate to No Deal?
The only sensible arrangements to mitigate a no deal is - to make a deal
(though not necessarily a trade deal)

tim
Ophelia
2017-10-11 18:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be the
disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned at the
absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't imagine
why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am I missing
something?
To explain, AISI No Deal means "no trade deal".
nope.

It means no deal at all - no agreement on anything at all.
The UK and the EU would still get through the withdrawal agreement, however
imperfectly. They would agree citizens' rights. They would arrange that
flights could still pass from one side to the other. They would agree the
handling of atomic material. They would arrange lots of other ways to
interact on less favourable terms than now. And they would probably come up
with an implementation plan. The EU has no reason to reject any of this as
it satisfies their main political imperative that the UK must be worse off
as a result of leaving.
But I've not heard that from any politician. In fact, Keir Starmer
questioned the government a few months ago on a cliff edge where flights
were grounded and queues clogged ports and so on. No one corrected him.
So am I going mad? Would the two sides seriously let No Deal become the
latter scenario?
we might have no choice.

but the EU does - so if it does end up there they will have created it
themselves.
If not, why are politicians not speaking about sensible arrangements to
migrate to No Deal?
The only sensible arrangements to mitigate a no deal is - to make a deal
(though not necessarily a trade deal)

tim

==

The EU has made it clear there will be no deal until we agree to give them
£billions. It is all they are interested in.
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
tim...
2017-10-12 10:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ophelia
==
The EU has made it clear there will be no deal until we agree to give them
£billions. It is all they are interested in.
well the quicker that they learn that the only way to get those billions is
to make a deal, the better it will be for everyone.

Because currently the are acting like they have a motive other than
collecting those billions.

Note that there's no reason why the deal that they make shouldn't be able to
"punish" us in other ways.

tim
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-12 11:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be the
disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned at the
absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't imagine
why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am I missing
something?
To explain, AISI No Deal means "no trade deal".
nope.
It means no deal at all - no agreement on anything at all.
The UK and the EU would still get through the withdrawal agreement, however
imperfectly. They would agree citizens' rights. They would arrange that
flights could still pass from one side to the other. They would agree the
handling of atomic material. They would arrange lots of other ways to
interact on less favourable terms than now. And they would probably come up
with an implementation plan. The EU has no reason to reject any of this as
it satisfies their main political imperative that the UK must be worse off
as a result of leaving.
But I've not heard that from any politician. In fact, Keir Starmer
questioned the government a few months ago on a cliff edge where flights
were grounded and queues clogged ports and so on. No one corrected him.
So am I going mad? Would the two sides seriously let No Deal become the
latter scenario?
we might have no choice.
but the EU does - so if it does end up there they will have created it
themselves.
If not, why are politicians not speaking about sensible arrangements to
migrate to No Deal?
The only sensible arrangements to mitigate a no deal is - to make a deal
(though not necessarily a trade deal)
tim
==
The EU has made it clear there will be no deal until we agree to give them
£billions. It is all they are interested in.
Do keep up. The EU wants the following sorted out first: -

1. What happens to their citizens in the UK.
2. What happens to the border in Ireland.
3. That the UK accounts for and reaches settlement on financial commitments it has ALREADY made.

OTOH May offered the EU ~£18Billion to extend the notice period by a couple of years...
Post by tim...
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Norman Wells
2017-10-12 11:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Ophelia
The EU has made it clear there will be no deal until we agree to give them
£billions. It is all they are interested in.
Do keep up. The EU wants the following sorted out first: -
1. What happens to their citizens in the UK.
Why should that preclude talks on trade?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
2. What happens to the border in Ireland.
Why should that preclude talks on trade?
Post by R. Mark Clayton
3. That the UK accounts for and reaches settlement on financial commitments it has ALREADY made.
They want us to pay them lots of money. Can you point me please to
their itemised bill?

That is the normal way, after all.
James Harris
2017-10-11 18:58:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be the
disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned at the
absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't imagine
why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am I missing
something?
To explain, AISI No Deal means "no trade deal".
nope.
It means no deal at all - no agreement on anything at all.
How do you know?
--
James Harris
tim...
2017-10-12 10:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be the
disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned at the
absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't imagine
why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am I missing
something?
To explain, AISI No Deal means "no trade deal".
nope.
It means no deal at all - no agreement on anything at all.
because it patently clear that's the definition

tim
James Harris
2017-10-12 13:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by tim...
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be the
disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned at the
absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't imagine
why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am I missing
something?
To explain, AISI No Deal means "no trade deal".
nope.
It means no deal at all - no agreement on anything at all.
because it patently clear that's the definition
In your view.

I would think different people would use the term in different ways.
--
James Harris
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-12 11:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
SNIP
Post by tim...
Post by James Harris
But I've not heard that from any politician. In fact, Keir Starmer
questioned the government a few months ago on a cliff edge where flights
were grounded and queues clogged ports and so on. No one corrected him.
So am I going mad? Would the two sides seriously let No Deal become the
latter scenario?
we might have no choice.
but the EU does - so if it does end up there they will have created it
themselves.
No the EU has a deal, the UK are the ones creating [the situation] themselves.
Post by tim...
Post by James Harris
If not, why are politicians not speaking about sensible arrangements to
migrate to No Deal?
The only sensible arrangements to mitigate a no deal is - to make a deal
(though not necessarily a trade deal)
tim
James Harris
2017-10-12 14:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by tim...
Post by James Harris
But I've not heard that from any politician. In fact, Keir Starmer
questioned the government a few months ago on a cliff edge where flights
were grounded and queues clogged ports and so on. No one corrected him.
So am I going mad? Would the two sides seriously let No Deal become the
latter scenario?
we might have no choice.
but the EU does - so if it does end up there they will have created it
themselves.
No the EU has a deal, the UK are the ones creating [the situation] themselves.
Not so. The EU said that a country could leave under certain conditions
and by following a certain procedure. The UK is doing so. That is all
within the provisions of the treaties. The UK is following the rules.
The ones "creating" the situation are _all_28_. They decided on this
together.
--
James Harris
James Hammerton
2017-10-11 20:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am
I missing something?
To explain, AISI No Deal means "no trade deal". The UK and the EU would
still get through the withdrawal agreement, however imperfectly. They
would agree citizens' rights. They would arrange that flights could
still pass from one side to the other. They would agree the handling of
atomic material. They would arrange lots of other ways to interact on
less favourable terms than now. And they would probably come up with an
implementation plan. The EU has no reason to reject any of this as it
satisfies their main political imperative that the UK must be worse off
as a result of leaving.
But I've not heard that from any politician. In fact, Keir Starmer
questioned the government a few months ago on a cliff edge where flights
were grounded and queues clogged ports and so on. No one corrected him.
So am I going mad? Would the two sides seriously let No Deal become the
latter scenario?
If not, why are politicians not speaking about sensible arrangements to
migrate to No Deal?
I guess the possibilities are:

* both sides mean 'no trade deal' when they talk of 'no deal' but are
simplifying the language for public consumption, and the talk of
contingency planning is actually referring to a withdrawal agreement
aiming solely to mitigate the 'cliff edge' as we leave the EU.

* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever (but don't want to spook
the public by confirming or even arguing about whether it means blocked
ports, grounded flights, etc) and are waiting to see which side blinks
first in the hope improving the offers coming from the other side. This
would essentially mean the brexit talks have become a game of chicken,
and the risk of literally no deal will rise the longer the sides hold
out for.

* one side thinks 'no deal' means no trade deal and the other thinks it
means no deal whatsoever. This would mean some miscommunication is going
on as to what each side's intentions actually are, and means there's a
risk of literally no deal occurring because the misunderstanding doesn't
get uncovered in time to prevent it.

* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever but don't regard it as
much of an issue even if a deal would be preferable to avoid having to
put tariffs up, in which case why don't they come out and say so?

* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever but one side regards it
as not a big deal whilst the other side can't believe they'd risk it and
thus regard it as a bluff. This would mean that the perceptions of the
risks involved differ so much that it may jeopardise the reaching of a
deal, in which case we'd better hope that the side who regards it as not
a big deal as closer to the truth than the other side.

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
James Harris
2017-10-11 21:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am
I missing something?
To explain, AISI No Deal means "no trade deal". The UK and the EU would
still get through the withdrawal agreement, however imperfectly. They
would agree citizens' rights. They would arrange that flights could
still pass from one side to the other. They would agree the handling of
atomic material. They would arrange lots of other ways to interact on
less favourable terms than now. And they would probably come up with an
implementation plan. The EU has no reason to reject any of this as it
satisfies their main political imperative that the UK must be worse off
as a result of leaving.
But I've not heard that from any politician. In fact, Keir Starmer
questioned the government a few months ago on a cliff edge where flights
were grounded and queues clogged ports and so on. No one corrected him.
So am I going mad? Would the two sides seriously let No Deal become the
latter scenario?
If not, why are politicians not speaking about sensible arrangements to
migrate to No Deal?
* both sides mean 'no trade deal' when they talk of 'no deal' but are
simplifying the language for public consumption, and the talk of
contingency planning is actually referring to a withdrawal agreement
aiming solely to mitigate the 'cliff edge' as we leave the EU.
* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever (but don't want to spook
the public by confirming or even arguing about whether it means blocked
ports, grounded flights, etc) and are waiting to see which side blinks
first in the hope improving the offers coming from the other side. This
would essentially mean the brexit talks have become a game of chicken,
and the risk of literally no deal will rise the longer the sides hold
out for.
* one side thinks 'no deal' means no trade deal and the other thinks it
means no deal whatsoever. This would mean some miscommunication is going
on as to what each side's intentions actually are, and means there's a
risk of literally no deal occurring because the misunderstanding doesn't
get uncovered in time to prevent it.
* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever but don't regard it as
much of an issue even if a deal would be preferable to avoid having to
put tariffs up, in which case why don't they come out and say so?
* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever but one side regards it
as not a big deal whilst the other side can't believe they'd risk it and
thus regard it as a bluff. This would mean that the perceptions of the
risks involved differ so much that it may jeopardise the reaching of a
deal, in which case we'd better hope that the side who regards it as not
a big deal as closer to the truth than the other side.
When it comes down to it nearer the deadline, what would you estimate as
the chances of them failing to agree things like flights, citizens'
rights and basic WTO trade?
--
James Harris
tim...
2017-10-12 11:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
When it comes down to it nearer the deadline, what would you estimate as
the chances of them failing to agree things like flights, citizens' rights
and basic WTO trade?
That depends on how certain the EU are that we will take "no deal" as the
alternative to asking to withdraw our resignation.

ATM they still seem to think that us asking to stay in is a reasonable
possibility.

The EU don't want "no deal" any more then we do. Much of the stuff that we
are trying to negotiate now will *need* to be negotiated afterwards anyway.
But afterwards they wont be able to play off agreement on one thing as a
prerequisite for agreements on another - they will all be negotiated as
stand alone items.

tim
James Hammerton
2017-10-12 18:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am
I missing something?
To explain, AISI No Deal means "no trade deal". The UK and the EU would
still get through the withdrawal agreement, however imperfectly. They
would agree citizens' rights. They would arrange that flights could
still pass from one side to the other. They would agree the handling of
atomic material. They would arrange lots of other ways to interact on
less favourable terms than now. And they would probably come up with an
implementation plan. The EU has no reason to reject any of this as it
satisfies their main political imperative that the UK must be worse off
as a result of leaving.
But I've not heard that from any politician. In fact, Keir Starmer
questioned the government a few months ago on a cliff edge where flights
were grounded and queues clogged ports and so on. No one corrected him.
So am I going mad? Would the two sides seriously let No Deal become the
latter scenario?
If not, why are politicians not speaking about sensible arrangements to
migrate to No Deal?
* both sides mean 'no trade deal' when they talk of 'no deal' but are
simplifying the language for public consumption, and the talk of
contingency planning is actually referring to a withdrawal agreement
aiming solely to mitigate the 'cliff edge' as we leave the EU.
* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever (but don't want to spook
the public by confirming or even arguing about whether it means blocked
ports, grounded flights, etc) and are waiting to see which side blinks
first in the hope improving the offers coming from the other side. This
would essentially mean the brexit talks have become a game of chicken,
and the risk of literally no deal will rise the longer the sides hold
out for.
* one side thinks 'no deal' means no trade deal and the other thinks it
means no deal whatsoever. This would mean some miscommunication is going
on as to what each side's intentions actually are, and means there's a
risk of literally no deal occurring because the misunderstanding doesn't
get uncovered in time to prevent it.
* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever but don't regard it as
much of an issue even if a deal would be preferable to avoid having to
put tariffs up, in which case why don't they come out and say so?
* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever but one side regards it
as not a big deal whilst the other side can't believe they'd risk it and
thus regard it as a bluff. This would mean that the perceptions of the
risks involved differ so much that it may jeopardise the reaching of a
deal, in which case we'd better hope that the side who regards it as not
a big deal as closer to the truth than the other side.
When it comes down to it nearer the deadline, what would you estimate as
the chances of them failing to agree things like flights, citizens'
rights and basic WTO trade?
Any such estimate would be a total guess! I'm not sure which of the
scenarios I outlined above is playing out though I suspect it's more
likely than not that both sides appreciate the implications of no deal
whatsoever, and also more likely than not that both sides are talking
the same language when they talk about 'no deal' (though more subtle
forms of miscommunication might be going on, despite best efforts
otherwise).

What I can say is that if the EU will not budge on the requirement that
we can't move to talking about the trade relationship until we've sorted
out the settling of accounts and we won't budge on our view that the two
need to be talked about together then the talks will break down, and
then it's down to how much good will there is to try and mitigate the
impact of the 'cliff edge', bearing in mind even that may involve some
tricky discussions.

However, a further question to ponder is at what point do we get to the
stage where if no deal has been agreed, there won't be time to put the
necessary arrangements in place to mitigate the 'cliff edge'?

E.g. I've seen it suggested that expanding the ports and border
inspection posts (which are used to check animal origin food and animals
themselves) so they could handle UK --> EU exports would take 2 to 3
years due both to the need to build necessary infrastructure and to
hire/train the extra staff needed, which implies that even the entirety
of the Article 50 process would be the barest minimum time required for
this aspect of the problem to be addressed. The UK might also need to
expand capacity and that would need to be factored in.

Of course if the transition/implementation period being suggested is
included then there's more leeway, but then that transition would need
to have the UK/EU trade proceeding under current arrangements whilst
preparations for the new arrangements are put in place. Would the EU
drop the demand that we remain under the ECJ, paying into the budget,
etc during such a transition? Would we accept that demand?

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
James Harris
2017-10-12 21:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am
I missing something?
To explain, AISI No Deal means "no trade deal". The UK and the EU would
still get through the withdrawal agreement, however imperfectly. They
would agree citizens' rights. They would arrange that flights could
still pass from one side to the other. They would agree the handling of
atomic material. They would arrange lots of other ways to interact on
less favourable terms than now. And they would probably come up with an
implementation plan. The EU has no reason to reject any of this as it
satisfies their main political imperative that the UK must be worse off
as a result of leaving.
But I've not heard that from any politician. In fact, Keir Starmer
questioned the government a few months ago on a cliff edge where flights
were grounded and queues clogged ports and so on. No one corrected him.
So am I going mad? Would the two sides seriously let No Deal become the
latter scenario?
If not, why are politicians not speaking about sensible arrangements to
migrate to No Deal?
* both sides mean 'no trade deal' when they talk of 'no deal' but are
simplifying the language for public consumption, and the talk of
contingency planning is actually referring to a withdrawal agreement
aiming solely to mitigate the 'cliff edge' as we leave the EU.
* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever (but don't want to spook
the public by confirming or even arguing about whether it means blocked
ports, grounded flights, etc) and are waiting to see which side blinks
first in the hope improving the offers coming from the other side. This
would essentially mean the brexit talks have become a game of chicken,
and the risk of literally no deal will rise the longer the sides hold
out for.
* one side thinks 'no deal' means no trade deal and the other thinks it
means no deal whatsoever. This would mean some miscommunication is going
on as to what each side's intentions actually are, and means there's a
risk of literally no deal occurring because the misunderstanding doesn't
get uncovered in time to prevent it.
* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever but don't regard it as
much of an issue even if a deal would be preferable to avoid having to
put tariffs up, in which case why don't they come out and say so?
* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever but one side regards it
as not a big deal whilst the other side can't believe they'd risk it and
thus regard it as a bluff. This would mean that the perceptions of the
risks involved differ so much that it may jeopardise the reaching of a
deal, in which case we'd better hope that the side who regards it as not
a big deal as closer to the truth than the other side.
When it comes down to it nearer the deadline, what would you estimate as
the chances of them failing to agree things like flights, citizens'
rights and basic WTO trade?
Any such estimate would be a total guess! I'm not sure which of the
scenarios I outlined above is playing out though I suspect it's more
likely than not that both sides appreciate the implications of no deal
whatsoever, and also more likely than not that both sides are talking
the same language when they talk about 'no deal' (though more subtle
forms of miscommunication might be going on, despite best efforts
otherwise).
Fair enough. I'm still puzzling over the apparent possibility of no
agreement of any kind. I find it simply not credible but people who know
more than I do seem to consider it feasible.

If the two sides cannot agree then what I would like to see is a simple
and amicable decision to go to WTO terms, and them time spent to prepare
for exactly that. But perhaps emotions are getting involved when the EU
insists the UK indemnify its taxpayers. That could lead to a source of
unhelpful grievance. It's not our duty to pay for things beyond our
leaving date, if we leave under the EU's own rules. Yet they want to get
money from us so they can carry on for years to come as if they have not
lost our membership and our money. And I gather than the EU continues to
add spending commitments as if nothing has happened. It seems mad to me
- or it's denial, or maybe an attempt to apply pressure.
Post by James Hammerton
What I can say is that if the EU will not budge on the requirement that
we can't move to talking about the trade relationship until we've sorted
out the settling of accounts and we won't budge on our view that the two
need to be talked about together then the talks will break down, and
then it's down to how much good will there is to try and mitigate the
impact of the 'cliff edge', bearing in mind even that may involve some
tricky discussions.
However, a further question to ponder is at what point do we get to the
stage where if no deal has been agreed, there won't be time to put the
necessary arrangements in place to mitigate the 'cliff edge'?
E.g. I've seen it suggested that expanding the ports and border
inspection posts (which are used to check animal origin food and animals
themselves) so they could handle UK --> EU exports would take 2 to 3
years due both to the need to build necessary infrastructure and to
hire/train the extra staff needed, which implies that even the entirety
of the Article 50 process would be the barest minimum time required for
this aspect of the problem to be addressed. The UK might also need to
expand capacity and that would need to be factored in.
I saw Kit Malthouse asking representatives of the ports and the customs
service about the changeover. He basically got from them an agreement
that they do _not_ have to be ready for day 1. Because they examine only
a small percentage of shipments (according to some criteria which they
do not divulge) they have the option to take time to add normal checking
for shipments from the EU. I am not sure how that would work at Dover,
though, and they were talking of taking 3 to 6 months to get fully set
up, not the period you mentioned. But imports don't need to wait until
they are up to normal speed.
Post by James Hammerton
Of course if the transition/implementation period being suggested is
included then there's more leeway, but then that transition would need
to have the UK/EU trade proceeding under current arrangements whilst
preparations for the new arrangements are put in place. Would the EU
drop the demand that we remain under the ECJ, paying into the budget,
etc during such a transition? Would we accept that demand?
Regards,
James
--
James Harris
James Hammerton
2017-10-13 18:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal
scenario. Am
I missing something?
To explain, AISI No Deal means "no trade deal". The UK and the EU would
still get through the withdrawal agreement, however imperfectly. They
would agree citizens' rights. They would arrange that flights could
still pass from one side to the other. They would agree the handling of
atomic material. They would arrange lots of other ways to interact on
less favourable terms than now. And they would probably come up with an
implementation plan. The EU has no reason to reject any of this as it
satisfies their main political imperative that the UK must be worse off
as a result of leaving.
But I've not heard that from any politician. In fact, Keir Starmer
questioned the government a few months ago on a cliff edge where flights
were grounded and queues clogged ports and so on. No one corrected him.
So am I going mad? Would the two sides seriously let No Deal become the
latter scenario?
If not, why are politicians not speaking about sensible
arrangements to
migrate to No Deal?
* both sides mean 'no trade deal' when they talk of 'no deal' but are
simplifying the language for public consumption, and the talk of
contingency planning is actually referring to a withdrawal agreement
aiming solely to mitigate the 'cliff edge' as we leave the EU.
* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever (but don't want to spook
the public by confirming or even arguing about whether it means blocked
ports, grounded flights, etc) and are waiting to see which side blinks
first in the hope improving the offers coming from the other side. This
would essentially mean the brexit talks have become a game of chicken,
and the risk of literally no deal will rise the longer the sides hold
out for.
* one side thinks 'no deal' means no trade deal and the other thinks it
means no deal whatsoever. This would mean some miscommunication is going
on as to what each side's intentions actually are, and means there's a
risk of literally no deal occurring because the misunderstanding doesn't
get uncovered in time to prevent it.
* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever but don't regard it as
much of an issue even if a deal would be preferable to avoid having to
put tariffs up, in which case why don't they come out and say so?
* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever but one side regards it
as not a big deal whilst the other side can't believe they'd risk it and
thus regard it as a bluff. This would mean that the perceptions of the
risks involved differ so much that it may jeopardise the reaching of a
deal, in which case we'd better hope that the side who regards it as not
a big deal as closer to the truth than the other side.
When it comes down to it nearer the deadline, what would you estimate as
the chances of them failing to agree things like flights, citizens'
rights and basic WTO trade?
Any such estimate would be a total guess! I'm not sure which of the
scenarios I outlined above is playing out though I suspect it's more
likely than not that both sides appreciate the implications of no deal
whatsoever, and also more likely than not that both sides are talking
the same language when they talk about 'no deal' (though more subtle
forms of miscommunication might be going on, despite best efforts
otherwise).
Fair enough. I'm still puzzling over the apparent possibility of no
agreement of any kind. I find it simply not credible but people who know
more than I do seem to consider it feasible.
If the two sides cannot agree then what I would like to see is a simple
and amicable decision to go to WTO terms, and them time spent to prepare
for exactly that. But perhaps emotions are getting involved when the EU
insists the UK indemnify its taxpayers. That could lead to a source of
unhelpful grievance. It's not our duty to pay for things beyond our
leaving date, if we leave under the EU's own rules. Yet they want to get
money from us so they can carry on for years to come as if they have not
lost our membership and our money. And I gather than the EU continues to
add spending commitments as if nothing has happened. It seems mad to me
- or it's denial, or maybe an attempt to apply pressure.
I think one of the reasons why Richard North et al regard the WTO option
as insanely bad for us -- his son Pete forecasts a 10 year recession on
the scale of the 1930s depression (yet he still backs Brexit in that
scenario!) -- is that they view the hurdles that have to be crossed to
smooth the cliff edge in this scenario as being insurmountable in any
reasonable time frame even under a managed transition.

I'm not yet certain I would agree that a managed transition to WTO
terms, agreed with the EU, would be infeasible, partly because I haven't
seen them address possible approaches to smoothing out the cliff edge in
any sort of detail (as opposed to laying out of the problems that would
need to be addressed).
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
What I can say is that if the EU will not budge on the requirement that
we can't move to talking about the trade relationship until we've sorted
out the settling of accounts and we won't budge on our view that the two
need to be talked about together then the talks will break down, and
then it's down to how much good will there is to try and mitigate the
impact of the 'cliff edge', bearing in mind even that may involve some
tricky discussions.
However, a further question to ponder is at what point do we get to the
stage where if no deal has been agreed, there won't be time to put the
necessary arrangements in place to mitigate the 'cliff edge'?
E.g. I've seen it suggested that expanding the ports and border
inspection posts (which are used to check animal origin food and animals
themselves) so they could handle UK --> EU exports would take 2 to 3
years due both to the need to build necessary infrastructure and to
hire/train the extra staff needed, which implies that even the entirety
of the Article 50 process would be the barest minimum time required for
this aspect of the problem to be addressed. The UK might also need to
expand capacity and that would need to be factored in.
I saw Kit Malthouse asking representatives of the ports and the customs
service about the changeover.
Do you have a link to this? Or do you remember which committee it was
and when it was?

He basically got from them an agreement
Post by James Harris
that they do _not_ have to be ready for day 1. Because they examine only
a small percentage of shipments (according to some criteria which they
do not divulge) they have the option to take time to add normal checking
for shipments from the EU. I am not sure how that would work at Dover,
though, and they were talking of taking 3 to 6 months to get fully set
up, not the period you mentioned. But imports don't need to wait until
they are up to normal speed.
This would require a similar approach on the EU's end, but it does
represent a way of dealing with the trade related aspects of the cliff
edge. Here one would hope our current convergence with EU regulations
would enable them to trust our exports during the transition period as
the checks get gradually ramped up to normal speed, and being part of a
transitional arrangement agreed to for the purpose of smoothing our
departure to WTO rules would stave off any complaints from other third
countries that we were receiving special treatement.

One issue here, possibly not addressed in those comments to Kit
Malthouse, is with the Border Inspection Posts used for livestock and
animal products imported into the EU from third countries - all such
consignments have to be directed to a BIP and most of them physically
checked under EU law (our own government states that most such
consignments will need to be checked here:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/importing-live-animals-or-animal-products-from-non-eu-countries).


In Ireland, there are 2 BIPs in Dublin and Shannon, all the relevant
cross border trade from Northern Ireland would need to be routed through
these or new ones built.

The BIPs near to the ports on the English channel in France would need
to expand to handle much larger traffic than is currently the case.
British exports of animals and animal products to the rest of the EU
currently don't need to go through a BIP let alone get checked.

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
James Harris
2017-10-13 20:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am
I missing something?
To explain, AISI No Deal means "no trade deal". The UK and the EU would
still get through the withdrawal agreement, however imperfectly. They
would agree citizens' rights. They would arrange that flights could
still pass from one side to the other. They would agree the handling of
atomic material. They would arrange lots of other ways to interact on
less favourable terms than now. And they would probably come up with an
implementation plan. The EU has no reason to reject any of this as it
satisfies their main political imperative that the UK must be worse off
as a result of leaving.
But I've not heard that from any politician. In fact, Keir Starmer
questioned the government a few months ago on a cliff edge where flights
were grounded and queues clogged ports and so on. No one corrected him.
So am I going mad? Would the two sides seriously let No Deal become the
latter scenario?
If not, why are politicians not speaking about sensible
arrangements to
migrate to No Deal?
* both sides mean 'no trade deal' when they talk of 'no deal' but are
simplifying the language for public consumption, and the talk of
contingency planning is actually referring to a withdrawal agreement
aiming solely to mitigate the 'cliff edge' as we leave the EU.
* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever (but don't want to spook
the public by confirming or even arguing about whether it means blocked
ports, grounded flights, etc) and are waiting to see which side blinks
first in the hope improving the offers coming from the other side. This
would essentially mean the brexit talks have become a game of chicken,
and the risk of literally no deal will rise the longer the sides hold
out for.
* one side thinks 'no deal' means no trade deal and the other thinks it
means no deal whatsoever. This would mean some miscommunication is going
on as to what each side's intentions actually are, and means there's a
risk of literally no deal occurring because the misunderstanding doesn't
get uncovered in time to prevent it.
* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever but don't regard it as
much of an issue even if a deal would be preferable to avoid having to
put tariffs up, in which case why don't they come out and say so?
* both sides mean literally no deal whatsoever but one side regards it
as not a big deal whilst the other side can't believe they'd risk it and
thus regard it as a bluff. This would mean that the perceptions of the
risks involved differ so much that it may jeopardise the reaching of a
deal, in which case we'd better hope that the side who regards it as not
a big deal as closer to the truth than the other side.
When it comes down to it nearer the deadline, what would you estimate as
the chances of them failing to agree things like flights, citizens'
rights and basic WTO trade?
Any such estimate would be a total guess! I'm not sure which of the
scenarios I outlined above is playing out though I suspect it's more
likely than not that both sides appreciate the implications of no deal
whatsoever, and also more likely than not that both sides are talking
the same language when they talk about 'no deal' (though more subtle
forms of miscommunication might be going on, despite best efforts
otherwise).
Fair enough. I'm still puzzling over the apparent possibility of no
agreement of any kind. I find it simply not credible but people who know
more than I do seem to consider it feasible.
If the two sides cannot agree then what I would like to see is a simple
and amicable decision to go to WTO terms, and them time spent to prepare
for exactly that. But perhaps emotions are getting involved when the EU
insists the UK indemnify its taxpayers. That could lead to a source of
unhelpful grievance. It's not our duty to pay for things beyond our
leaving date, if we leave under the EU's own rules. Yet they want to get
money from us so they can carry on for years to come as if they have not
lost our membership and our money. And I gather than the EU continues to
add spending commitments as if nothing has happened. It seems mad to me
- or it's denial, or maybe an attempt to apply pressure.
I think one of the reasons why Richard North et al regard the WTO option
as insanely bad for us -- his son Pete forecasts a 10 year recession on
the scale of the 1930s depression (yet he still backs Brexit in that
scenario!) -- is that they view the hurdles that have to be crossed to
smooth the cliff edge in this scenario as being insurmountable in any
reasonable time frame even under a managed transition.
I'm not yet certain I would agree that a managed transition to WTO
terms, agreed with the EU, would be infeasible, partly because I haven't
seen them address possible approaches to smoothing out the cliff edge in
any sort of detail (as opposed to laying out of the problems that would
need to be addressed).
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
What I can say is that if the EU will not budge on the requirement that
we can't move to talking about the trade relationship until we've sorted
out the settling of accounts and we won't budge on our view that the two
need to be talked about together then the talks will break down, and
then it's down to how much good will there is to try and mitigate the
impact of the 'cliff edge', bearing in mind even that may involve some
tricky discussions.
However, a further question to ponder is at what point do we get to the
stage where if no deal has been agreed, there won't be time to put the
necessary arrangements in place to mitigate the 'cliff edge'?
E.g. I've seen it suggested that expanding the ports and border
inspection posts (which are used to check animal origin food and animals
themselves) so they could handle UK --> EU exports would take 2 to 3
years due both to the need to build necessary infrastructure and to
hire/train the extra staff needed, which implies that even the entirety
of the Article 50 process would be the barest minimum time required for
this aspect of the problem to be addressed. The UK might also need to
expand capacity and that would need to be factored in.
I saw Kit Malthouse asking representatives of the ports and the customs
service about the changeover.
Do you have a link to this? Or do you remember which committee it was
and when it was?
I didn't. But thanks to the Internet, Treasury Committee, 14 Sept 2017.
--
James Harris
James Hammerton
2017-10-13 22:46:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am
I missing something?
[snip]
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
What I can say is that if the EU will not budge on the requirement that
we can't move to talking about the trade relationship until we've sorted
out the settling of accounts and we won't budge on our view that the two
need to be talked about together then the talks will break down, and
then it's down to how much good will there is to try and mitigate the
impact of the 'cliff edge', bearing in mind even that may involve some
tricky discussions.
However, a further question to ponder is at what point do we get to the
stage where if no deal has been agreed, there won't be time to put the
necessary arrangements in place to mitigate the 'cliff edge'?
E.g. I've seen it suggested that expanding the ports and border
inspection posts (which are used to check animal origin food and animals
themselves) so they could handle UK --> EU exports would take 2 to 3
years due both to the need to build necessary infrastructure and to
hire/train the extra staff needed, which implies that even the entirety
of the Article 50 process would be the barest minimum time required for
this aspect of the problem to be addressed. The UK might also need to
expand capacity and that would need to be factored in.
I saw Kit Malthouse asking representatives of the ports and the customs
service about the changeover.
Do you have a link to this? Or do you remember which committee it was
and when it was?
I didn't. But thanks to the Internet, Treasury Committee, 14 Sept 2017.
Presumably this then:
http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/149fec44-2c49-476f-bba2-23b2f5d58a0a

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
James Harris
2017-10-13 23:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am
I missing something?
[snip]
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
What I can say is that if the EU will not budge on the requirement that
we can't move to talking about the trade relationship until we've sorted
out the settling of accounts and we won't budge on our view that the two
need to be talked about together then the talks will break down, and
then it's down to how much good will there is to try and mitigate the
impact of the 'cliff edge', bearing in mind even that may involve some
tricky discussions.
However, a further question to ponder is at what point do we get to the
stage where if no deal has been agreed, there won't be time to put the
necessary arrangements in place to mitigate the 'cliff edge'?
E.g. I've seen it suggested that expanding the ports and border
inspection posts (which are used to check animal origin food and animals
themselves) so they could handle UK --> EU exports would take 2 to 3
years due both to the need to build necessary infrastructure and to
hire/train the extra staff needed, which implies that even the entirety
of the Article 50 process would be the barest minimum time required for
this aspect of the problem to be addressed. The UK might also need to
expand capacity and that would need to be factored in.
I saw Kit Malthouse asking representatives of the ports and the customs
service about the changeover.
Do you have a link to this? Or do you remember which committee it was
and when it was?
I didn't. But thanks to the Internet, Treasury Committee, 14 Sept 2017.
http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/149fec44-2c49-476f-bba2-23b2f5d58a0a
Yes, there's quite a lot of it. ... Try 11:24 to 11:34.
--
James Harris
James Hammerton
2017-10-13 23:19:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am
I missing something?
[snip]
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
What I can say is that if the EU will not budge on the requirement that
we can't move to talking about the trade relationship until we've sorted
out the settling of accounts and we won't budge on our view that the two
need to be talked about together then the talks will break down, and
then it's down to how much good will there is to try and mitigate the
impact of the 'cliff edge', bearing in mind even that may involve some
tricky discussions.
However, a further question to ponder is at what point do we get to the
stage where if no deal has been agreed, there won't be time to put the
necessary arrangements in place to mitigate the 'cliff edge'?
E.g. I've seen it suggested that expanding the ports and border
inspection posts (which are used to check animal origin food and animals
themselves) so they could handle UK --> EU exports would take 2 to 3
years due both to the need to build necessary infrastructure and to
hire/train the extra staff needed, which implies that even the entirety
of the Article 50 process would be the barest minimum time required for
this aspect of the problem to be addressed. The UK might also need to
expand capacity and that would need to be factored in.
I saw Kit Malthouse asking representatives of the ports and the customs
service about the changeover.
Do you have a link to this? Or do you remember which committee it was
and when it was?
I didn't. But thanks to the Internet, Treasury Committee, 14 Sept 2017.
http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/149fec44-2c49-476f-bba2-23b2f5d58a0a
Yes, there's quite a lot of it. ... Try 11:24 to 11:34.
Thanks.

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
James Hammerton
2017-10-13 23:47:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am
I missing something?
[snip]
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
What I can say is that if the EU will not budge on the
requirement that
we can't move to talking about the trade relationship until we've sorted
out the settling of accounts and we won't budge on our view that the two
need to be talked about together then the talks will break down, and
then it's down to how much good will there is to try and mitigate the
impact of the 'cliff edge', bearing in mind even that may involve some
tricky discussions.
However, a further question to ponder is at what point do we get to the
stage where if no deal has been agreed, there won't be time to put the
necessary arrangements in place to mitigate the 'cliff edge'?
E.g. I've seen it suggested that expanding the ports and border
inspection posts (which are used to check animal origin food and animals
themselves) so they could handle UK --> EU exports would take 2 to 3
years due both to the need to build necessary infrastructure and to
hire/train the extra staff needed, which implies that even the entirety
of the Article 50 process would be the barest minimum time required for
this aspect of the problem to be addressed. The UK might also need to
expand capacity and that would need to be factored in.
I saw Kit Malthouse asking representatives of the ports and the customs
service about the changeover.
Do you have a link to this? Or do you remember which committee it was
and when it was?
I didn't. But thanks to the Internet, Treasury Committee, 14 Sept 2017.
http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/149fec44-2c49-476f-bba2-23b2f5d58a0a
Yes, there's quite a lot of it. ... Try 11:24 to 11:34.
Thanks.
So I watched the entirety of Kit Malthouse's questioning.

I got the impression he wasn't quite getting the point being made about
what the customs authorities of the EU would be doing on day 1 of
Brexit. We are of course free to not levy tariffs and to do minimal or
no customs checks and free to be flexible in how we transition our own
customs systems from the current state to the state desired after
Brexit, but if our exports get stopped and checked at the EU ports and
they don't have the capacity to support the volume, that will cause a
blockage that impacts traffic in both directions so we really do need
mitigation of the risks to occur on both sides.

That said, it should be possible for the EU authorities to also be
flexible on this and it is in their interest to do so precisely in order
to avoid said blockages which will cause harm both sides.

Also, from what I saw (about the first 35 mins, then I skipped to the
section you suggested) they didn't talk about the BIPs, but I guess the
same points apply which is that we could waive the requirement for
animal and animal product imports into the UK from the EU to go through
a BIP until we're ready to handle them (we probably do want to make
those checks in the long run), but the EU side of this is out of our
control and may require coordination/cooperation to avoid snarl ups.

Later I shall rewatch the whole of the Brexit related sections of that
meeting as I got the impression it was useful for understanding where
HMRC thinks we're at.

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
James Harris
2017-10-14 00:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in charge. I can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal scenario. Am
I missing something?
[snip]
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
What I can say is that if the EU will not budge on the
requirement that
we can't move to talking about the trade relationship until we've sorted
out the settling of accounts and we won't budge on our view that the two
need to be talked about together then the talks will break down, and
then it's down to how much good will there is to try and mitigate the
impact of the 'cliff edge', bearing in mind even that may involve some
tricky discussions.
However, a further question to ponder is at what point do we get to the
stage where if no deal has been agreed, there won't be time to put the
necessary arrangements in place to mitigate the 'cliff edge'?
E.g. I've seen it suggested that expanding the ports and border
inspection posts (which are used to check animal origin food and animals
themselves) so they could handle UK --> EU exports would take 2 to 3
years due both to the need to build necessary infrastructure and to
hire/train the extra staff needed, which implies that even the entirety
of the Article 50 process would be the barest minimum time required for
this aspect of the problem to be addressed. The UK might also need to
expand capacity and that would need to be factored in.
I saw Kit Malthouse asking representatives of the ports and the customs
service about the changeover.
Do you have a link to this? Or do you remember which committee it was
and when it was?
I didn't. But thanks to the Internet, Treasury Committee, 14 Sept 2017.
http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/149fec44-2c49-476f-bba2-23b2f5d58a0a
Yes, there's quite a lot of it. ... Try 11:24 to 11:34.
Thanks.
So I watched the entirety of Kit Malthouse's questioning.
I got the impression he wasn't quite getting the point being made about
what the customs authorities of the EU would be doing on day 1 of
Brexit. We are of course free to not levy tariffs and to do minimal or
no customs checks and free to be flexible in how we transition our own
customs systems from the current state to the state desired after
Brexit, but if our exports get stopped and checked at the EU ports and
they don't have the capacity to support the volume, that will cause a
blockage that impacts traffic in both directions so we really do need
mitigation of the risks to occur on both sides.
I think his point was that we on our side could avoid the fabled cliff
edge while we developed the facilities for more-thorough checking. I was
surprised that the officials largely agreed with him.

Certainly we would have no control over what the EU side did.
Post by James Hammerton
That said, it should be possible for the EU authorities to also be
flexible on this and it is in their interest to do so precisely in order
to avoid said blockages which will cause harm both sides.
Maybe, thought it's worth bearing in mind that there are two bodies
involved in any EU-side trade: the country and the EU. Either one could
insist on punitive checks, for example as Spain sometimes does over
Gibraltar.

Such issues suggest that WTO trade would not be a disaster in itself but
an acrimonious breakup would be much more of a problem. I've been saying
that for a while on the assumption that we could just decide to go to
WTO but I hadn't considered things like the EU's demand for money which
seems to come with unhelpful emotion. One way or another that could lead
to bad feeling.
--
James Harris
James Hammerton
2017-10-14 00:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would
not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit
concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in
charge. I
can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal
scenario. Am
I missing something?
[snip]
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
What I can say is that if the EU will not budge on the
requirement that
we can't move to talking about the trade relationship until we've sorted
out the settling of accounts and we won't budge on our view
that the
two
need to be talked about together then the talks will break down, and
then it's down to how much good will there is to try and mitigate the
impact of the 'cliff edge', bearing in mind even that may involve some
tricky discussions.
However, a further question to ponder is at what point do we get to the
stage where if no deal has been agreed, there won't be time to put the
necessary arrangements in place to mitigate the 'cliff edge'?
E.g. I've seen it suggested that expanding the ports and border
inspection posts (which are used to check animal origin food and animals
themselves) so they could handle UK --> EU exports would take 2 to 3
years due both to the need to build necessary infrastructure and to
hire/train the extra staff needed, which implies that even the entirety
of the Article 50 process would be the barest minimum time required for
this aspect of the problem to be addressed. The UK might also need to
expand capacity and that would need to be factored in.
I saw Kit Malthouse asking representatives of the ports and the customs
service about the changeover.
Do you have a link to this? Or do you remember which committee it was
and when it was?
I didn't. But thanks to the Internet, Treasury Committee, 14 Sept 2017.
http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/149fec44-2c49-476f-bba2-23b2f5d58a0a
Yes, there's quite a lot of it. ... Try 11:24 to 11:34.
Thanks.
So I watched the entirety of Kit Malthouse's questioning.
I got the impression he wasn't quite getting the point being made about
what the customs authorities of the EU would be doing on day 1 of
Brexit. We are of course free to not levy tariffs and to do minimal or
no customs checks and free to be flexible in how we transition our own
customs systems from the current state to the state desired after
Brexit, but if our exports get stopped and checked at the EU ports and
they don't have the capacity to support the volume, that will cause a
blockage that impacts traffic in both directions so we really do need
mitigation of the risks to occur on both sides.
I think his point was that we on our side could avoid the fabled cliff
edge while we developed the facilities for more-thorough checking. I was
surprised that the officials largely agreed with him.
Certainly we would have no control over what the EU side did.
And that's why I feel he was being a bit complacent. The cliff-edge is
not (solely) about what we will need to do to allow imports in, it's as
much about the trade going the other direction being blocked because,
e.g. we or the company concerned or the consignment concerned have not
been registered in advance as required under EU law, leading to document
checks and physical inspections and/or goods being refused entry. The
cliff edge cannot really be resolved with unilateral action - it will
require cooperation from the EU.
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
That said, it should be possible for the EU authorities to also be
flexible on this and it is in their interest to do so precisely in order
to avoid said blockages which will cause harm both sides.
Maybe, thought it's worth bearing in mind that there are two bodies
involved in any EU-side trade: the country and the EU. Either one could
insist on punitive checks, for example as Spain sometimes does over
Gibraltar.
Such issues suggest that WTO trade would not be a disaster in itself but
an acrimonious breakup would be much more of a problem. I've been saying
that for a while on the assumption that we could just decide to go to
WTO but I hadn't considered things like the EU's demand for money which
seems to come with unhelpful emotion. One way or another that could lead
to bad feeling.
Oddly enough, the session we're discussing was spotted by Richard North,
his (rather negative) commentary on the session is here:

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86606

What do you think?

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
James Harris
2017-10-14 07:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would
not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit
concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in
charge. I
can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal
scenario. Am
I missing something?
[snip]
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
What I can say is that if the EU will not budge on the requirement that
we can't move to talking about the trade relationship until we've sorted
out the settling of accounts and we won't budge on our view
that the
two
need to be talked about together then the talks will break down, and
then it's down to how much good will there is to try and mitigate the
impact of the 'cliff edge', bearing in mind even that may involve some
tricky discussions.
However, a further question to ponder is at what point do we get to the
stage where if no deal has been agreed, there won't be time to put the
necessary arrangements in place to mitigate the 'cliff edge'?
E.g. I've seen it suggested that expanding the ports and border
inspection posts (which are used to check animal origin food and animals
themselves) so they could handle UK --> EU exports would take 2 to 3
years due both to the need to build necessary infrastructure and to
hire/train the extra staff needed, which implies that even the entirety
of the Article 50 process would be the barest minimum time required for
this aspect of the problem to be addressed. The UK might also need to
expand capacity and that would need to be factored in.
I saw Kit Malthouse asking representatives of the ports and the customs
service about the changeover.
Do you have a link to this? Or do you remember which committee it was
and when it was?
I didn't. But thanks to the Internet, Treasury Committee, 14 Sept 2017.
http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/149fec44-2c49-476f-bba2-23b2f5d58a0a
Yes, there's quite a lot of it. ... Try 11:24 to 11:34.
Thanks.
So I watched the entirety of Kit Malthouse's questioning.
I got the impression he wasn't quite getting the point being made about
what the customs authorities of the EU would be doing on day 1 of
Brexit. We are of course free to not levy tariffs and to do minimal or
no customs checks and free to be flexible in how we transition our own
customs systems from the current state to the state desired after
Brexit, but if our exports get stopped and checked at the EU ports and
they don't have the capacity to support the volume, that will cause a
blockage that impacts traffic in both directions so we really do need
mitigation of the risks to occur on both sides.
I think his point was that we on our side could avoid the fabled cliff
edge while we developed the facilities for more-thorough checking. I was
surprised that the officials largely agreed with him.
Certainly we would have no control over what the EU side did.
And that's why I feel he was being a bit complacent. The cliff-edge is
not (solely) about what we will need to do to allow imports in, it's as
much about the trade going the other direction being blocked because,
e.g. we or the company concerned or the consignment concerned have not
been registered in advance as required under EU law, leading to document
checks and physical inspections and/or goods being refused entry. The
cliff edge cannot really be resolved with unilateral action - it will
require cooperation from the EU.
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
That said, it should be possible for the EU authorities to also be
flexible on this and it is in their interest to do so precisely in order
to avoid said blockages which will cause harm both sides.
Maybe, thought it's worth bearing in mind that there are two bodies
involved in any EU-side trade: the country and the EU. Either one could
insist on punitive checks, for example as Spain sometimes does over
Gibraltar.
Such issues suggest that WTO trade would not be a disaster in itself but
an acrimonious breakup would be much more of a problem. I've been saying
that for a while on the assumption that we could just decide to go to
WTO but I hadn't considered things like the EU's demand for money which
seems to come with unhelpful emotion. One way or another that could lead
to bad feeling.
Oddly enough, the session we're discussing was spotted by Richard North,
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86606
What do you think?
I did try to read it. After the first three paragraphs I was annoyed at
North's childish and self-righteous manner (e.g. calling the witnesses
"three old hands ... blagging their way through the session" and
"belching out a dense smokescreen of unmitigated extruded verbal
material"). North is so much cleverer than everyone else.

I stuck with it for a page or so but the sneering continued and, I
thought, hinted at the North usual message that no solution would be as
good as the EEA/EFTA step that he has long known to be best.

On that, in fact, he might be right but I would hope that the government
would have it in their arsenal. We cannot know what the UK's fallback
plans are. From the outside, they seem to me to be too willing to give
away too much. I can accept and respect that approach: they want to
build a future partnership. But I wonder if they anticipated the
negativity and different political goals coming from the other side.
(One reason why leaving is the best choice.)

A number of Europeans whom I've heard interviewed say that the EU27
really do want a good deal as long as it's sufficiently worse for
Britain than the current arrangement. If so, the negotiations should be
rescue-able. But there are dangers and I can only hope the government is
ready for them.

As for the substance of customs arrangements which I guess was what you
wanted me to reply about perhaps you could paste any of North's comments
you had in mind and I'll respond here...?
--
James Harris
James Hammerton
2017-10-14 16:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
For some time I have been saying that No Deal with the EU would
not be
the disaster that some expect but I am beginning to get a bit
concerned
at the absence of confirmation from the politicians in
charge. I
can't
imagine why they don't say what's possible under a No Deal
scenario. Am
I missing something?
[snip]
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
What I can say is that if the EU will not budge on the requirement that
we can't move to talking about the trade relationship until
we've
sorted
out the settling of accounts and we won't budge on our view
that the
two
need to be talked about together then the talks will break down, and
then it's down to how much good will there is to try and
mitigate
the
impact of the 'cliff edge', bearing in mind even that may
involve
some
tricky discussions.
However, a further question to ponder is at what point do we get to the
stage where if no deal has been agreed, there won't be time to put the
necessary arrangements in place to mitigate the 'cliff edge'?
E.g. I've seen it suggested that expanding the ports and border
inspection posts (which are used to check animal origin food and
animals
themselves) so they could handle UK --> EU exports would take 2 to 3
years due both to the need to build necessary infrastructure and to
hire/train the extra staff needed, which implies that even the entirety
of the Article 50 process would be the barest minimum time required for
this aspect of the problem to be addressed. The UK might also need to
expand capacity and that would need to be factored in.
I saw Kit Malthouse asking representatives of the ports and the customs
service about the changeover.
Do you have a link to this? Or do you remember which committee it was
and when it was?
I didn't. But thanks to the Internet, Treasury Committee, 14 Sept 2017.
http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/149fec44-2c49-476f-bba2-23b2f5d58a0a
Yes, there's quite a lot of it. ... Try 11:24 to 11:34.
Thanks.
So I watched the entirety of Kit Malthouse's questioning.
I got the impression he wasn't quite getting the point being made about
what the customs authorities of the EU would be doing on day 1 of
Brexit. We are of course free to not levy tariffs and to do minimal or
no customs checks and free to be flexible in how we transition our own
customs systems from the current state to the state desired after
Brexit, but if our exports get stopped and checked at the EU ports and
they don't have the capacity to support the volume, that will cause a
blockage that impacts traffic in both directions so we really do need
mitigation of the risks to occur on both sides.
I think his point was that we on our side could avoid the fabled cliff
edge while we developed the facilities for more-thorough checking. I was
surprised that the officials largely agreed with him.
Certainly we would have no control over what the EU side did.
And that's why I feel he was being a bit complacent. The cliff-edge is
not (solely) about what we will need to do to allow imports in, it's as
much about the trade going the other direction being blocked because,
e.g. we or the company concerned or the consignment concerned have not
been registered in advance as required under EU law, leading to document
checks and physical inspections and/or goods being refused entry. The
cliff edge cannot really be resolved with unilateral action - it will
require cooperation from the EU.
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
That said, it should be possible for the EU authorities to also be
flexible on this and it is in their interest to do so precisely in order
to avoid said blockages which will cause harm both sides.
Maybe, thought it's worth bearing in mind that there are two bodies
involved in any EU-side trade: the country and the EU. Either one could
insist on punitive checks, for example as Spain sometimes does over
Gibraltar.
Such issues suggest that WTO trade would not be a disaster in itself but
an acrimonious breakup would be much more of a problem. I've been saying
that for a while on the assumption that we could just decide to go to
WTO but I hadn't considered things like the EU's demand for money which
seems to come with unhelpful emotion. One way or another that could lead
to bad feeling.
Oddly enough, the session we're discussing was spotted by Richard North,
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86606
What do you think?
I did try to read it. After the first three paragraphs I was annoyed at
North's childish and self-righteous manner (e.g. calling the witnesses
"three old hands ... blagging their way through the session" and
"belching out a dense smokescreen of unmitigated extruded verbal
material"). North is so much cleverer than everyone else.
:-)

Yes that's fair comment - he's been researching and blogging about the
issues related to Brexit for years and he's become rather impatient with
people who do seem not to be aware of the issues/legalities involved and
thus put forward propositions he thinks would be disastrous for the
country, like leaving the single market in the short term/Article 50
process (Flexit does sees us leave it many years down the line) and
especially anyone proposing 'no deal'/the WTO option (though he's clear
about interpreting that as literally no deal whatsoever).
Post by James Harris
I stuck with it for a page or so but the sneering continued and, I
thought, hinted at the North usual message that no solution would be as
good as the EEA/EFTA step that he has long known to be best.
:-) see the last line of the stuff I quote below...
Post by James Harris
On that, in fact, he might be right but I would hope that the government
would have it in their arsenal. We cannot know what the UK's fallback
plans are. From the outside, they seem to me to be too willing to give
away too much. I can accept and respect that approach: they want to
build a future partnership. But I wonder if they anticipated the
negativity and different political goals coming from the other side.
(One reason why leaving is the best choice.)
A number of Europeans whom I've heard interviewed say that the EU27
really do want a good deal as long as it's sufficiently worse for
Britain than the current arrangement. If so, the negotiations should be
rescue-able. But there are dangers and I can only hope the government is
ready for them.
As for the substance of customs arrangements which I guess was what you
wanted me to reply about perhaps you could paste any of North's comments
you had in mind and I'll respond here...?
So here's the bit that I think was most pertinent, where he points how a
comment *unremarked on by the committee* actually is an indicator of
(potentially serious) consequences of us becoming a 'third country':

<begin quote>
"One thing that struck me though was Harra's admission that the current
electronic customs system at Dover lacked an "inventory link" which
meant that there was no way of tying together customs declarations with
the trucks that were carrying the goods. That required paper processing
at the port.

But if we do not have that information electronically, that means we
can't transmit it to the French, which means that they will also have to
check vehicle paperwork manually, adding to delays.

The thing here though is that, from Brexit day onwards, trucks carrying
foodstuffs of animal origin will have to be identified and then passed
on to Dunkirk or – for the most part – returned to Dover. There simply
isn't the capacity to handle them.

Then the more detailed screening will start. There will be a high
probability that any vehicle carrying chemicals – to which the REACH
Regulation applies - will be carrying goods which have not been
registered in accordance with EU law, having been registered by a
UK-based company.

Thus, any vehicle carrying chemicals – and that can include things like
cleaning agents, adhesives, industrial solvents, paints, corrosion
treatments and much else – will have to be checked and registrations
verified. Full ingredient lists will have to be obtained and, in many
instances, physical inspections will have to be made.

Any truck carrying medicines, medical equipment, or medical devices,
will have to be checked. Those carrying consignments of machinery – and
even things such as household lawnmowers – will have to be checked, to
ensure that valid test certificates are in place.

Vehicles and vehicle parts will also need to be checked. Any that rely
on UK approvals may have to be refused entry, and returned to Dover.
Aircraft parts will likewise need to be checked.

Then, if there has been no deal, the loads on British-registered trucks
will have to be transhipped, as British vehicles will not be allowed
through, as the operators' licences will not be valid. Nor, or course,
will the driving licences, or the drivers' certificates of professional
competence.

Bearing in mind the limited space at Calais, there will be no room for
the bulk of the inspections, and with the number of truck being held for
inspection or return will quickly overwhelm the facilities. Mr Lodge's
two hours delay will be seen as an impossible pipe dream.

And it is then that we will see Operation Stack. If the vehicles and
loads cannot be cleared out of Calais port, that means that inbound
ferries will not be able to offload. And if they can't offload, they
can't return for new loads. And so the system grinds to a halt.

But nobody sitting though that Committee session would get any real idea
that this was the most likely consequence of Brexit – deal or no deal.
The real damage is done by Mrs May's determination leave the Single
Market. That is what is going to cause gridlock. "
<end quote>

Now, I only partially agree with him (I'm not yet convinced that leaving
the SM *in a managed manner* must cause gridlock), but his conclusion
isn't the reason I raised this. It's the fact that you often need to get
into the detail of how EU laws work and how deeply integrated UK systems
are with EU systems to realise what the problems with 'no deal' are, and
ISTM that committee did gloss over the details and the MPs failed to see
the enormity of the problems a poorly prepared Brexit may cause (the
HMRC guys may believe the government has this in hand and might not be
worried about it).

I think the scenario he outlines above is relevant to the literally no
deal scenario but ISTM he doesn't cater for, e.g. an agreement whereby
Britain and her EU exporting businesses are added to the list of
approved third countries and their exporters (perhaps with a requirement
to renew after a few years) so that all they need to do is ensure the
required paper work and checks are in place, where the customs checks
are gradually ramped up to full speed to allow time for any new
infrastructure to be built, etc.

However it would mean that customs checks would occur at the EU border,
which therefore would mean the border between Northern Ireland and the
Republic of Ireland, unless some special arrangements are made there.

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
James Harris
2017-10-15 05:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86606
What do you think?
I did try to read it. After the first three paragraphs I was annoyed at
North's childish and self-righteous manner (e.g. calling the witnesses
"three old hands ... blagging their way through the session" and
"belching out a dense smokescreen of unmitigated extruded verbal
material"). North is so much cleverer than everyone else.
:-)
Yes that's fair comment - he's been researching and blogging about the
issues related to Brexit for years and he's become rather impatient with
people who do seem not to be aware of the issues/legalities involved and
thus put forward propositions he thinks would be disastrous for the
country, like leaving the single market in the short term/Article 50
process (Flexit does sees us leave it many years down the line) and
especially anyone proposing 'no deal'/the WTO option (though he's clear
about interpreting that as literally no deal whatsoever).
Post by James Harris
I stuck with it for a page or so but the sneering continued and, I
thought, hinted at the North usual message that no solution would be as
good as the EEA/EFTA step that he has long known to be best.
:-) see the last line of the stuff I quote below...
Post by James Harris
On that, in fact, he might be right but I would hope that the government
would have it in their arsenal. We cannot know what the UK's fallback
plans are. From the outside, they seem to me to be too willing to give
away too much. I can accept and respect that approach: they want to
build a future partnership. But I wonder if they anticipated the
negativity and different political goals coming from the other side.
(One reason why leaving is the best choice.)
A number of Europeans whom I've heard interviewed say that the EU27
really do want a good deal as long as it's sufficiently worse for
Britain than the current arrangement. If so, the negotiations should be
rescue-able. But there are dangers and I can only hope the government is
ready for them.
As for the substance of customs arrangements which I guess was what you
wanted me to reply about perhaps you could paste any of North's comments
you had in mind and I'll respond here...?
So here's the bit that I think was most pertinent, where he points how a
comment *unremarked on by the committee* actually is an indicator of
<begin quote>
...
Post by James Hammerton
<end quote>
I had actually read most of the bit you quoted (snipped). Maybe I got
further through it than I realised.

Sorry I can't comment on the specifics such as the rules on chemical
transfers but I think a lot of the things North says come under the
heading of "problems to be addressed" rather than "the worst could
happen". Life is full of /potential/ problems and they can even seem
insurmountable, especially when they are matters of political will.
People say "you can't do that" or "this could go wrong". But when it
comes down to it, if there's reason to do so, people get their heads
together and find solutions.

We had loads of this prior to the referendum. For example, the head of
the WTO said that Britain would face tortuous negotiations to fix the
terms of its membership if it voted Leave. Yet after we voted Leave he
"vowed to ensure Britain will not face a trade 'vacuum or a disruption',
however tough its exit from the European Union". He also said that while
Britain would have to renegotiate its membership of the trade body after
its EU departure, the process was relatively straightforward. :-)
Post by James Hammerton
Now, I only partially agree with him (I'm not yet convinced that leaving
the SM *in a managed manner* must cause gridlock), but his conclusion
isn't the reason I raised this. It's the fact that you often need to get
into the detail of how EU laws work and how deeply integrated UK systems
are with EU systems to realise what the problems with 'no deal' are, and
ISTM that committee did gloss over the details and the MPs failed to see
the enormity of the problems a poorly prepared Brexit may cause (the
HMRC guys may believe the government has this in hand and might not be
worried about it).
It's a valid question over whether the committee appreciated the details
or not. I would hope, however, that the /government is aware of them.
Remember they spent months examining the British economy and its needs.
IIRC they studied the tens of different sectors and got representatives
of those sectors to identify their exposures and to quantify them. There
/should/ be civil servants in the Brexit department who is aware of all
legitimate issues, above. Whether they are or not, I don't know.
Post by James Hammerton
I think the scenario he outlines above is relevant to the literally no
deal scenario but ISTM he doesn't cater for, e.g. an agreement whereby
Britain and her EU exporting businesses are added to the list of
approved third countries and their exporters (perhaps with a requirement
to renew after a few years) so that all they need to do is ensure the
required paper work and checks are in place, where the customs checks
are gradually ramped up to full speed to allow time for any new
infrastructure to be built, etc.
AIUI if there were to be "literally no deal" whatsoever then
cross-border trade (at least in goods) would not just reduce but would
stop altogeher, flights would be grounded, who knows what would happen
to existing contracts, and territorial waters would revert. The British
are not going to go that way. And there are enough sane voices in the
27, surely, not to let that happen. So I find it hard to believe it will
be the final result.
Post by James Hammerton
However it would mean that customs checks would occur at the EU border,
which therefore would mean the border between Northern Ireland and the
Republic of Ireland, unless some special arrangements are made there.
Jacob Rees-Mogg had an interesting take on the Irish border. Although he
expected customs checks to be made there would be a relatively hands-off
approach where:

1. Britain would not put in place infrastructure on the border itself
2. Nor would Ireland
3. The EU might insist. If it did, it would have a fight with Ireland.
And that would risk Ireland getting fed up with EU bullying and, like
Britain, seeing the light!
--
James Harris
Ophelia
2017-10-15 11:12:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86606
What do you think?
I did try to read it. After the first three paragraphs I was annoyed at
North's childish and self-righteous manner (e.g. calling the witnesses
"three old hands ... blagging their way through the session" and
"belching out a dense smokescreen of unmitigated extruded verbal
material"). North is so much cleverer than everyone else.
:-)
Yes that's fair comment - he's been researching and blogging about the
issues related to Brexit for years and he's become rather impatient with
people who do seem not to be aware of the issues/legalities involved and
thus put forward propositions he thinks would be disastrous for the
country, like leaving the single market in the short term/Article 50
process (Flexit does sees us leave it many years down the line) and
especially anyone proposing 'no deal'/the WTO option (though he's clear
about interpreting that as literally no deal whatsoever).
Post by James Harris
I stuck with it for a page or so but the sneering continued and, I
thought, hinted at the North usual message that no solution would be as
good as the EEA/EFTA step that he has long known to be best.
:-) see the last line of the stuff I quote below...
Post by James Harris
On that, in fact, he might be right but I would hope that the government
would have it in their arsenal. We cannot know what the UK's fallback
plans are. From the outside, they seem to me to be too willing to give
away too much. I can accept and respect that approach: they want to
build a future partnership. But I wonder if they anticipated the
negativity and different political goals coming from the other side.
(One reason why leaving is the best choice.)
A number of Europeans whom I've heard interviewed say that the EU27
really do want a good deal as long as it's sufficiently worse for
Britain than the current arrangement. If so, the negotiations should be
rescue-able. But there are dangers and I can only hope the government is
ready for them.
As for the substance of customs arrangements which I guess was what you
wanted me to reply about perhaps you could paste any of North's comments
you had in mind and I'll respond here...?
So here's the bit that I think was most pertinent, where he points how a
comment *unremarked on by the committee* actually is an indicator of
<begin quote>
...
Post by James Hammerton
<end quote>
I had actually read most of the bit you quoted (snipped). Maybe I got
further through it than I realised.

Sorry I can't comment on the specifics such as the rules on chemical
transfers but I think a lot of the things North says come under the
heading of "problems to be addressed" rather than "the worst could
happen". Life is full of /potential/ problems and they can even seem
insurmountable, especially when they are matters of political will.
People say "you can't do that" or "this could go wrong". But when it
comes down to it, if there's reason to do so, people get their heads
together and find solutions.

We had loads of this prior to the referendum. For example, the head of
the WTO said that Britain would face tortuous negotiations to fix the
terms of its membership if it voted Leave. Yet after we voted Leave he
"vowed to ensure Britain will not face a trade 'vacuum or a disruption',
however tough its exit from the European Union". He also said that while
Britain would have to renegotiate its membership of the trade body after
its EU departure, the process was relatively straightforward. :-)
Post by James Hammerton
Now, I only partially agree with him (I'm not yet convinced that leaving
the SM *in a managed manner* must cause gridlock), but his conclusion
isn't the reason I raised this. It's the fact that you often need to get
into the detail of how EU laws work and how deeply integrated UK systems
are with EU systems to realise what the problems with 'no deal' are, and
ISTM that committee did gloss over the details and the MPs failed to see
the enormity of the problems a poorly prepared Brexit may cause (the
HMRC guys may believe the government has this in hand and might not be
worried about it).
It's a valid question over whether the committee appreciated the details
or not. I would hope, however, that the /government is aware of them.
Remember they spent months examining the British economy and its needs.
IIRC they studied the tens of different sectors and got representatives
of those sectors to identify their exposures and to quantify them. There
/should/ be civil servants in the Brexit department who is aware of all
legitimate issues, above. Whether they are or not, I don't know.
Post by James Hammerton
I think the scenario he outlines above is relevant to the literally no
deal scenario but ISTM he doesn't cater for, e.g. an agreement whereby
Britain and her EU exporting businesses are added to the list of
approved third countries and their exporters (perhaps with a requirement
to renew after a few years) so that all they need to do is ensure the
required paper work and checks are in place, where the customs checks
are gradually ramped up to full speed to allow time for any new
infrastructure to be built, etc.
AIUI if there were to be "literally no deal" whatsoever then
cross-border trade (at least in goods) would not just reduce but would
stop altogeher, flights would be grounded, who knows what would happen
to existing contracts, and territorial waters would revert. The British
are not going to go that way. And there are enough sane voices in the
27, surely, not to let that happen. So I find it hard to believe it will
be the final result.
Post by James Hammerton
However it would mean that customs checks would occur at the EU border,
which therefore would mean the border between Northern Ireland and the
Republic of Ireland, unless some special arrangements are made there.
Jacob Rees-Mogg had an interesting take on the Irish border. Although he
expected customs checks to be made there would be a relatively hands-off
approach where:

1. Britain would not put in place infrastructure on the border itself
2. Nor would Ireland
3. The EU might insist. If it did, it would have a fight with Ireland.
And that would risk Ireland getting fed up with EU bullying and, like
Britain, seeing the light!


James Harris

==

With any luck:))
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Altroy1
2017-10-15 13:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by James Harris
Jacob Rees-Mogg had an interesting take on the Irish border. Although he
expected customs checks to be made there would be a relatively hands-off
Oh dear,I guess if JRM says something it must be true. JRM, the man that
believes "denial" is a big long river in Africa.

I have been listening on my MP3 player to a debate involving Brexit spinmeister
Euro MEP Daniel "Make America Great Again" Hannan.

Hannan's take? The UK is on its way to a Switzerland type Free Trade Deal with
the EU. Hannan sounded really cocksure. There is the hard bargaining and yes the
EU are going to demand X amount and the UK is going to offer Y amount then some
figure between the two would be the end result. Hannan implicitly admits that
there will be some payment of an exit bill. Every exit £Billion to the EU is
money not going to the NHS. Not a problem for Hannan, he being totaly opposed
to evil socialised medicine and would privatise the NHS in a heartbeat.

"Commons should give green light to Swiss-style deal, says Tory MEP"
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/816742/Britain-Switzerland-deal-Brexit-European-Union-Tory-MEP-Daniel-Hannan

Curiously, Hannan did not mention in the debate was that Switzerland has free
movement and is er, cough [ reaches for Strepsils ] a member of the hated
Schengen agreement. Switzerland, though, is is quibbling for the kind of borders
that certain Brexiteers such as Hannan said shouldn't happen in Ireland:

http://www.eurasiareview.com/13102017-switzerland-supports-prolonging-eu-border-checks/

Sommaruga noted that while Switzerland is a member of the Schengen
Area, the Swiss situation is different from that of EU member states
because it is not part of the EU customs union. As such, Switzerland
can already instate border controls based on "suspicion". Of course,
she added, "in Switzerland, we continually analyse whether other
measures are necessary and meaningful."
Post by James Harris
1. Britain would not put in place infrastructure on the border itself
2. Nor would Ireland
3. The EU might insist. If it did, it would have a fight with Ireland.
And that would risk Ireland getting fed up with EU bullying and, like
Britain, seeing the light!
No. The EU is not that stupid. The EU's negotiators know that no serious modern
non EU member European country such as Iceland, Norway and Switzerland lacks a
free trade relationship with the EU. They can read. They can read the like of
Hannan praising the concept of the Single Market. There is no House of Commons
majority for no deal. Hannan is right. A compromise will be negotiated. Probably
involving the hated CJEU and "unelected Brussels Bureaucrats" still having a
role. Since non EU member Australia can't get for love nor money a free trade
deal with uber protectionist India and Canada's feed up to the back teeth with
Make America Great Again's never ending demands, neither Ireland nor any other
EU country will be seeking any such light anytime soon.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2016/09/daniel-hannan-my-one-worry-about-brexit-that-if-we-mess-things-up-we-could-harm-relations-with-ireland.html

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/10/13/week-in-review-the-hunt-for-brexit-traitors-continues
James Hammerton
2017-10-15 17:40:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
...
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86606
What do you think?
I did try to read it. After the first three paragraphs I was annoyed at
North's childish and self-righteous manner (e.g. calling the witnesses
"three old hands ... blagging their way through the session" and
"belching out a dense smokescreen of unmitigated extruded verbal
material"). North is so much cleverer than everyone else.
:-)
Yes that's fair comment - he's been researching and blogging about the
issues related to Brexit for years and he's become rather impatient with
people who do seem not to be aware of the issues/legalities involved and
thus put forward propositions he thinks would be disastrous for the
country, like leaving the single market in the short term/Article 50
process (Flexit does sees us leave it many years down the line) and
especially anyone proposing 'no deal'/the WTO option (though he's clear
about interpreting that as literally no deal whatsoever).
Post by James Harris
I stuck with it for a page or so but the sneering continued and, I
thought, hinted at the North usual message that no solution would be as
good as the EEA/EFTA step that he has long known to be best.
:-) see the last line of the stuff I quote below...
Post by James Harris
On that, in fact, he might be right but I would hope that the government
would have it in their arsenal. We cannot know what the UK's fallback
plans are. From the outside, they seem to me to be too willing to give
away too much. I can accept and respect that approach: they want to
build a future partnership. But I wonder if they anticipated the
negativity and different political goals coming from the other side.
(One reason why leaving is the best choice.)
A number of Europeans whom I've heard interviewed say that the EU27
really do want a good deal as long as it's sufficiently worse for
Britain than the current arrangement. If so, the negotiations should be
rescue-able. But there are dangers and I can only hope the government is
ready for them.
As for the substance of customs arrangements which I guess was what you
wanted me to reply about perhaps you could paste any of North's comments
you had in mind and I'll respond here...?
So here's the bit that I think was most pertinent, where he points how a
comment *unremarked on by the committee* actually is an indicator of
<begin quote>
...
Post by James Hammerton
<end quote>
I had actually read most of the bit you quoted (snipped). Maybe I got
further through it than I realised.
Sorry I can't comment on the specifics such as the rules on chemical
transfers but I think a lot of the things North says come under the
heading of "problems to be addressed" rather than "the worst could
happen". Life is full of /potential/ problems and they can even seem
insurmountable, especially when they are matters of political will.
People say "you can't do that" or "this could go wrong". But when it
comes down to it, if there's reason to do so, people get their heads
together and find solutions.
I agree he often lists the problems without suggesting possible
solutions (aside from plugging Flexcit), but part of his case is that
the sheer volume of issues that need to be addressed as a result of the
decision to leave the single market, especially in the 'no deal',
'walking away' scenario makes it infeasible to tackle the problems
within the Article 50 timetable (assuming no extensions) if you try to
negotiate around the problems and means that there would be utter chaos
if we waited to tackle them until the day we've left the EU.

I think he would agree if you treat each problem in isolation it might
be resolvable at least with EU cooperation, but would argue having to
deal with them all at once might leave us swamped.
Post by James Harris
We had loads of this prior to the referendum. For example, the head of
the WTO said that Britain would face tortuous negotiations to fix the
terms of its membership if it voted Leave. Yet after we voted Leave he
"vowed to ensure Britain will not face a trade 'vacuum or a disruption',
however tough its exit from the European Union". He also said that while
Britain would have to renegotiate its membership of the trade body after
its EU departure, the process was relatively straightforward. :-)
I know. I noticed this stuff was revided in the media recently when it
was reported that some countries, including the US and New Zealand were
unhappy with the agreement Britain and the EU were presenting to
separate their schedules.

When the issue first broke in the media, ironically Richard North was
one of the very people who was arguing this specific issue had been
blown out of proportion and that it was relatively straightforward to
resolve, and even in the worst case of cases being brought against us at
the WTO, the trade would continue, this being due to the fact we are WTO
members in our own right and can rely on the dispute resolution
mechanisms that require proof of damage and which then reeks restitution
rather than strict conformity with a set of rules.

But to return to the point - I think it's a little different with North
in that because he researched the EU laws/regs in detail over many
years, the problems he raises are a lot more likely to be real, and as a
Brexiteer, I'm sure he'd prefer it if they didn't exist. As to their
solvability, the big attraction of his preferred solution, the EEA, is
that it solves most of them in one fell swoop, though it does occur to
me it's not even guaranteed we'd get EEA and EFTA membership (though it
seemed to me unlikely we'd be blocked on that if that's what we'd
decided to do at the outset) and if that happened even under his plans
we might find ourselves dealing withthe WTO option...
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
Now, I only partially agree with him (I'm not yet convinced that leaving
the SM *in a managed manner* must cause gridlock), but his conclusion
isn't the reason I raised this. It's the fact that you often need to get
into the detail of how EU laws work and how deeply integrated UK systems
are with EU systems to realise what the problems with 'no deal' are, and
ISTM that committee did gloss over the details and the MPs failed to see
the enormity of the problems a poorly prepared Brexit may cause (the
HMRC guys may believe the government has this in hand and might not be
worried about it).
It's a valid question over whether the committee appreciated the details
or not. I would hope, however, that the /government is aware of them.
Remember they spent months examining the British economy and its needs.
IIRC they studied the tens of different sectors and got representatives
of those sectors to identify their exposures and to quantify them. There
/should/ be civil servants in the Brexit department who is aware of all
legitimate issues, above. Whether they are or not, I don't know.
Agreed, and noone knows what's going on behind the scenes except the
protagonists. For all we know what's happening in public is part of a
deliberate strategy by both sides to lower expectations in preparation
for a deal that will then see a huge sigh of relief on both sides!

But if things are as they appear, there is reason for concern.
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
I think the scenario he outlines above is relevant to the literally no
deal scenario but ISTM he doesn't cater for, e.g. an agreement whereby
Britain and her EU exporting businesses are added to the list of
approved third countries and their exporters (perhaps with a requirement
to renew after a few years) so that all they need to do is ensure the
required paper work and checks are in place, where the customs checks
are gradually ramped up to full speed to allow time for any new
infrastructure to be built, etc.
AIUI if there were to be "literally no deal" whatsoever then
cross-border trade (at least in goods) would not just reduce but would
stop altogeher, flights would be grounded, who knows what would happen
to existing contracts, and territorial waters would revert. The British
are not going to go that way. And there are enough sane voices in the
27, surely, not to let that happen. So I find it hard to believe it will
be the final result.
When the result of the referendum was announced, the 'literally no deal'
scenario was the main reason I felt for worrying, but I too thought it
most unlikely things would unfold that way. Then May ruled out the
single market which I knew meant we were not taking the easiest option,
but still, unlike North, I felt that given careful planning that could
work out well. But now we see no deal being talked about as a real
possibility I'm worried they mean literally no deal.
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
However it would mean that customs checks would occur at the EU border,
which therefore would mean the border between Northern Ireland and the
Republic of Ireland, unless some special arrangements are made there.
Jacob Rees-Mogg had an interesting take on the Irish border. Although he
expected customs checks to be made there would be a relatively hands-off
1. Britain would not put in place infrastructure on the border itself
2. Nor would Ireland
3. The EU might insist. If it did, it would have a fight with Ireland.
And that would risk Ireland getting fed up with EU bullying and, like
Britain, seeing the light!
In earlier post of mine, I mentioned that WTO rules may constrain what
the EU can do with the NI border.

WTO rules require that the EU must treat third countries equally, at
least in the absence of treaties with those third countries that
reduce/remove barriers.

If the EU simply lets goods flow freely across the NI/Republic of
Ireland border would that not be a form of preferential treatment being
given to the UK?

Maybe if an agreement is made to allow it they can get away with it.

Perhaps if the UK and Ireland ensured any goods from arriving from the
UK or other third countries get inspected on entry to the island
(whether the NI or the Republic is the point of entry), and British
goods produced within NI are inspected prior to dispatch they could
square the circle such that the border itself isn't policed. This is
perhaps what the British proposals seem to be aiming at on this front.

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.com/
James Harris
2017-10-15 20:22:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Sorry I can't comment on the specifics such as the rules on chemical
transfers but I think a lot of the things North says come under the
heading of "problems to be addressed" rather than "the worst could
happen". Life is full of /potential/ problems and they can even seem
insurmountable, especially when they are matters of political will.
People say "you can't do that" or "this could go wrong". But when it
comes down to it, if there's reason to do so, people get their heads
together and find solutions.
I agree he often lists the problems without suggesting possible
solutions (aside from plugging Flexcit), but part of his case is that
the sheer volume of issues that need to be addressed as a result of the
decision to leave the single market, especially in the 'no deal',
'walking away' scenario makes it infeasible to tackle the problems
within the Article 50 timetable (assuming no extensions) if you try to
negotiate around the problems and means that there would be utter chaos
if we waited to tackle them until the day we've left the EU.
I think he would agree if you treat each problem in isolation it might
be resolvable at least with EU cooperation, but would argue having to
deal with them all at once might leave us swamped.
I couldn't begin to quantify the time needed to arrange those detailed
issues whether we went for FTA or WTO as the final position. I know the
government has said this is the most complex undertaking since WWII. We
have, surely, to leave it to them and trust they're aware of what's needed.
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
We had loads of this prior to the referendum. For example, the head of
the WTO said that Britain would face tortuous negotiations to fix the
terms of its membership if it voted Leave. Yet after we voted Leave he
"vowed to ensure Britain will not face a trade 'vacuum or a disruption',
however tough its exit from the European Union". He also said that while
Britain would have to renegotiate its membership of the trade body after
its EU departure, the process was relatively straightforward. :-)
I know. I noticed this stuff was revided in the media recently when it
was reported that some countries, including the US and New Zealand were
unhappy with the agreement Britain and the EU were presenting to
separate their schedules.
When the issue first broke in the media, ironically Richard North was
one of the very people who was arguing this specific issue had been
blown out of proportion and that it was relatively straightforward to
resolve, and even in the worst case of cases being brought against us at
the WTO, the trade would continue, this being due to the fact we are WTO
members in our own right and can rely on the dispute resolution
mechanisms that require proof of damage and which then reeks restitution
rather than strict conformity with a set of rules.
But to return to the point - I think it's a little different with North
in that because he researched the EU laws/regs in detail over many
years, the problems he raises are a lot more likely to be real, and as a
Brexiteer, I'm sure he'd prefer it if they didn't exist. As to their
solvability, the big attraction of his preferred solution, the EEA, is
that it solves most of them in one fell swoop, though it does occur to
me it's not even guaranteed we'd get EEA and EFTA membership (though it
seemed to me unlikely we'd be blocked on that if that's what we'd
decided to do at the outset) and if that happened even under his plans
we might find ourselves dealing withthe WTO option...
I completely acknowledge that he knows many specifics and it's welcome
that he lists them.

On EEA, David Davis was challenged recently about whether the UK had to
give notice to quit (because we are currently a member). I think it
needs a year's notice (EEA Article 127). I am not sure how that
requirement would fit into a possible exit from the single market to EEA.

...
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
I think the scenario he outlines above is relevant to the literally no
deal scenario but ISTM he doesn't cater for, e.g. an agreement whereby
Britain and her EU exporting businesses are added to the list of
approved third countries and their exporters (perhaps with a requirement
to renew after a few years) so that all they need to do is ensure the
required paper work and checks are in place, where the customs checks
are gradually ramped up to full speed to allow time for any new
infrastructure to be built, etc.
AIUI if there were to be "literally no deal" whatsoever then
cross-border trade (at least in goods) would not just reduce but would
stop altogeher, flights would be grounded, who knows what would happen
to existing contracts, and territorial waters would revert. The British
are not going to go that way. And there are enough sane voices in the
27, surely, not to let that happen. So I find it hard to believe it will
be the final result.
When the result of the referendum was announced, the 'literally no deal'
scenario was the main reason I felt for worrying, but I too thought it
most unlikely things would unfold that way. Then May ruled out the
single market which I knew meant we were not taking the easiest option,
but still, unlike North, I felt that given careful planning that could
work out well. But now we see no deal being talked about as a real
possibility I'm worried they mean literally no deal.
It would definitely be good to get that clarified. It irks me a bit that
so many journalists and their interviewees don't distinguish between
"literally no deal" and "no trade deal; go to WTO".

I hope they realise the difference. If they do, why don't they say so?
We had Rachel Shabi talking this morning about no-deal doom and I guess
she means "literally no deal" but that's never made clear to the public.
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
Post by James Hammerton
However it would mean that customs checks would occur at the EU border,
which therefore would mean the border between Northern Ireland and the
Republic of Ireland, unless some special arrangements are made there.
Jacob Rees-Mogg had an interesting take on the Irish border. Although he
expected customs checks to be made there would be a relatively hands-off
1. Britain would not put in place infrastructure on the border itself
2. Nor would Ireland
3. The EU might insist. If it did, it would have a fight with Ireland.
And that would risk Ireland getting fed up with EU bullying and, like
Britain, seeing the light!
In earlier post of mine, I mentioned that WTO rules may constrain what
the EU can do with the NI border.
WTO rules require that the EU must treat third countries equally, at
least in the absence of treaties with those third countries that
reduce/remove barriers.
If the EU simply lets goods flow freely across the NI/Republic of
Ireland border would that not be a form of preferential treatment being
given to the UK?
I'm glad you mentioned this again because it illustrates a fundamental
difference in concept. AIUI the UK government plan is to leave the
Ireland border unmanned and with no visible infrastructure marking it
but they still plan to identify imports across the border and collect
customs duties by various means. So there is no intention to leave it to
smugglers or allow preferential treatment.
--
James Harris
Altroy1
2017-10-15 21:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Hammerton
Post by James Harris
1. Britain would not put in place infrastructure on the border itself
2. Nor would Ireland
3. The EU might insist. If it did, it would have a fight with Ireland. And
that would risk Ireland getting fed up with EU bullying and, like Britain,
seeing the light!
[...]
Post by James Hammerton
WTO rules require that the EU must treat third countries equally, at
least in the absence of treaties with those third countries that
reduce/remove barriers.
If the EU simply lets goods flow freely across the NI/Republic of
Ireland border would that not be a form of preferential treatment being
given to the UK?
Maybe if an agreement is made to allow it they can get away with it.
Perhaps if the UK and Ireland ensured any goods from arriving from the
UK or other third countries get inspected on entry to the island
(whether the NI or the Republic is the point of entry), and British
goods produced within NI are inspected prior to dispatch they could
square the circle such that the border itself isn't policed. This is
perhaps what the British proposals seem to be aiming at on this front.
I was watching the 4th round press conference question/answer session on Youtube
yesterday with Michel Barnier and David Davis. Although a Brexiter, David is as
smart as if not far smarter than the like of Boris with far less tendency to
self delusion. David is asking from the EU a period of time to negotiate
external trade deals but he stressed that these would not be put in effect until
after Brexit. He explicitly recognised that it was not proper for the UK to
bilaterally trade with the rest of the world whilst allowing those goods the
ability to penetrate unregulated into the EU Single Market through an open back
door.

So, then, the suggestion to LEAVE the Customs Union and to LEAVE the Single
Market but with a 300 mile OPEN border allowing all sorts of goods from dubious
Central American and Middle Eastern dictatorships to pour unhindered into the EU
Single Market is just another example of Brexiteer midnight fantasy.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/push-for-australia-to-open-its-doors-to-indonesian-workers-under-free-trade-deal-20171011-gyyjdo.html

Jakarta: Indonesia is pushing for Australia to open its doors to
more Indonesian workers - such as nurses and cooks - as well as
removing tariffs on textiles as free trade negotiations between
the two countries enter the final month.

Meanwhile Australia wants reduced tariffs on products such as
skim milk powder and cold rolled steel and majority ownership of
investments in education, tourism and healthcare in Indonesia.
Post by James Hammerton
Regards,
James
James Harris
2017-10-11 21:59:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by James Harris
So am I going mad? Would the two sides seriously let No Deal become the
latter scenario?
If not, why are politicians not speaking about sensible arrangements to
migrate to No Deal?
...

FWIW I found this from the BBC. Brexit: What would 'no deal' look like?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39294904
--
James Harris
Loading...