Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[MikeUpNorth]

Thanks, thats interesting. Can you summarise their proposed solution?

• The backstop provision in the withdrawal agreement is dropped.
• The United Kingdom permanently delegates all trade policy matters in goods to a newly created European Customs Association (ECA) in which the EU is also a member. Neither the EU nor the UK pursues independent trade policies, and the ECA represents them the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the same way as the EU has done until now for all 28 EU members.
• The UK has voting rights in the ECA, as do all other member states. Together with the other members of the ECA, it mandates the EU Commission to negotiate trade agreements with third parties.
• Decisions are taken with a double majority as defined in the Lisbon Treaty, and the European Court of Justice (in an extended form including all participating countries) continues to supervise all law- and policy-making in the field of trade.
• The ECA covers all ‘classical‘ areas of trade policy, such as tariffs, quotas, rules of origin, trade defense, etc. On these issues, the EU has exclusive competence.
• Areas in which the EU has no exclusive competence and in which countries have veto rights (trade in services, intellectual property, direct foreign investment, audiovisual and cultural services, and social, educational and health services), should not fall under the ECA. During a transition period, the pertinent provisions in the EU treaties continue to apply. For the future, arrangements in these areas are made by means of one or several supplementary bilateral agreements.
• In existing trade agreements with third parties, provisions pertaining to ‘classical‘ areas or areas covered by bilateral agreements continue to apply to the UK, as well as those currently or in future negotiated

Basically, the EU compromises on free movement of labour (they make arguments as to why the supposed indivisibility of the four freedoms should be reviewed in their policy paper), and the UK compromises on an autonomous trade policy and full regulatory control.

At this stage it’s completly unrealistic, in my opinion, that either side would be willing to give up these red lines. However, the paper makes a well reasoned detailed argument for why they should, and I think it’s interesting that a very prominent European economic think tank is publicly arguing this.

 

[Adebesi]

If the UK decides not to pay the £39bn it will affect gilt prices surely? The cost of borrowing is low because the UK is seen as a reliable and trustworthy partner that will pay its debts, if that ceases to be the case the cost of borrowing will rise accordingly.

By rights the Tory party should be finished once all this has played out. But somehow I dont expect it to happen.

 

[SqueakyWeasel]

Except the Queen encourages co-operation & working together.

So, what are you saying Col?
I'm wrong for posting news about a dangerous movement infiltrating British politics because the Queen might have different views?

If she's got it all under control then I'll just move along!

 

[Massive Spanner]

If the UK decides not to pay the £39bn it will affect gilt prices surely? The cost of borrowing is low because the UK is seen as a reliable and trustworthy partner that will pay its debts, if that ceases to be the case the cost of borrowing will rise accordingly.

By rights the Tory party should be finished once all this has played out. But somehow I dont expect it to happen.

There's definitely a Lannister joke in there somewhere.

Something something UK fecks its sister.

 

[Mb194dc]

If the UK decides not to pay the £39bn it will affect gilt prices surely? The cost of borrowing is low because the UK is seen as a reliable and trustworthy partner that will pay its debts, if that ceases to be the case the cost of borrowing will rise accordingly.

By rights the Tory party should be finished once all this has played out. But somehow I dont expect it to happen.

Presumably there would be a legal battle / negotiations about the £39bn, not sure how jurisdiction would work exactly, probably need an expert in international law to figure it out.

I doubt it would effect the gilt market, no one is worried about nominal repayment of gilts as the government / BOE have full control of the pound.

 

[SqueakyWeasel]

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Presumably there would be a legal battle / negotiations about the £39bn, not sure how jurisdiction would work exactly, probably need an expert in international law to figure it out.

If negotiations broke down later this year, and the UK refused to pay, the EU might seek redress through the International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration, both located in The Hague. The result of such a court case would be hard to predict.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu-divorce-bill

 

[JPRouve]

I would strongly recommend reading this policy briefing released yesterday from the Ifo Institue (leading German economic think tank).

http://www.econpol.eu/sites/default/files/2019-01/EconPol_Policy_Brief_12_Brexit.pdf

To me, their proposed solution is a very fair compromise, even if seemingly completely politically unviable on both sides right now.

This is also their take on how a ‘no deal’ Brexit would play out at the Northern Irish border:



Interesting they think UK will just avoid having to implement a hard border in this emergency situation by reducing its WTO MFN tariffs to zero. What’s your take @JPRouve ? I think you have good insight on this stuff.

So, by reducing its tarrifs to zero and systematically requiring zero qualitative checks outside of an FTA and CU, the UK would put themselves in a situation where they won't have FTAs and where everyone else will have the right to maintain their trade barriers. That's a pretty bad situation from an economic and consumer safety standpoint.

For the EU it would be different while ROI would be in a difficult situation, the rest of the EU is protected by the fact that Ireland is an island and custom checks can be done anywhere. Goods unfit for the EU market do not become fit because they entered it, they have to be cleared by customs which could be done in any custom office between ROI and the rest of the EU. Also customs debt wouldn't be extinguished, failure to comply with customs legislation would still lead to penalties for the importers or goods carriers. So I don't think that there would be issues with other WTO members.

I'm pretty sure that there would some issues to fix with ROI and a financial support would be needed but that part is a little bit complex for me.

 

[Maticmaker]

Well, I wouldn’t compare international treaty obligations to a credit card as I think it confuses things more than helps.

In the event that the UK witheld the divorce payment, it would likely argue that it is not a one way street and it is owed its share of European assets. The EU commited to obligations to the UK as well, which would be witheld. The UK would say it is not getting its share of capital back from the European Investment Bank etc

Unlikely this argument would hold any weight, but that’s probably what we’d try.

It is precisely what the UK would argue, if there was a 'no deal' Brexit... the loss of the £39B is the most tangible part of the expected damage the EU would suffer from of going over the cliff edge, with us!

 

[MikeUpNorth]

For the EU it would be different while ROI would be in a difficult situation, the rest of the EU is protected by the fact that Ireland is an island and custom checks can be done anywhere. Goods unfit for the EU market do not become fit because they entered it, they have to be cleared by customs which could be done in any custom office between ROI and the rest of the EU. Also customs debt wouldn't be extinguished, failure to comply with customs legislation would still lead to penalties for the importers or goods carriers. So I don't think that there would be issues with other WTO members.

Thanks for the response.

To pick up on this paragraph, I think there would potentially be issues with other WTO members if Ireland (i.e. the EU) did not impose actual customs checks on goods entering its customs area from the UK, even if tariffs were still legally due.

To me, this would be the same situation we discussed earlier whereby the UK would run into WTO disputes if it allowed goods from the EU freely into NI, even if tariffs were still legally due.

Under WTO MFN rules, if the EU allows UK imports in unchecked (let’s assume these goods remain in Ireland for ease), it would be obliged to allow in goods unchecked from all other WTO members. This would also theoretically apply to all EU entry points, not just the NI border. Similarly, the UK couldn’t argue under WTO rules that its border in NI should be subject to special treatment without being applicable to other entry points.

 

[The Firestarter]

Well, I wouldn’t compare international treaty obligations to a credit card as I think it confuses things more than helps.

In the event that the UK witheld the divorce payment, it would likely argue that it is not a one way street and it is owed its share of European assets. The EU commited to obligations to the UK as well, which would be witheld. The UK would say it is not getting its share of capital back from the European Investment Bank etc

Unlikely this argument would hold any weight, but that’s probably what we’d try.

This will just impede any future negotiations. Hardly useful unless you plan total isolation and no trade whatsoever.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

They will beat you easily. They will definitely answer your questions....with answers that would have nothing to do with what you asked. kicking the can around, talking nonsense and disparing you, and you would look like the loser because they would drive you nuts.

They are professional liars, and to say a lot of things without meaning nothing. they earn thousands a year being professionals on that

Yes they are professional liars and con-men but they have all have two significant points of weakness.
Firstly if you don't tell lies you can't be found out and they do continously which is a vital weakness , secondly none of them are very bright and can be outwitted.

They have got away with so much with the British media because either the media have deliberately not asked the right questions and persisted with the line of questioning or that the journalists themselves are ignorant of what the truth is.

It's a question of asking the right things in the right circumstances.

 

[Buster15]

Could someone quickly explain why in the event of a no deal brexit the £39bn that is talked about is not payable?

Surely the fact that they have arrived at that figure demonstrates that the UK is indebted to the EU for it, but how come they wouldnt seem to be indebted to them for it in a no deal brexit scenario?

This is a very interesting issue.
I have read information saying that we DO and conversely WE DO NOT actually have to pay.
My understanding is that the figure represents money that we had committed to pay as part of our membership had we remained in the EU for a number of years hence.

However, the actual figure is part of the Withdrawal Bill which assumed that we would leave as part of that agreement.

I have also read that the £39bn is not legally binding should we leave with no deal. So there is some debate.

The key point though is that we need to continue to trade with both the EU as well as to negotiate new trade deals with the rest of the world and refusing to honour our commitment to the EU would send an extremely bad signal to future trade partners that the UK cannot be trusted.
So unless we really want to literally cut off our nose to spite our face, it appears that we have to or need to pay up.

 

[JPRouve]

Thanks for the response.

To pick up on this paragraph, I think there would potentially be issues with other WTO members if Ireland (i.e. the EU) did not impose actual customs checks on goods entering its customs area from the UK, even if tariffs were still legally due.

To me, this would be the same situation we discussed earlier whereby the UK would run into WTO disputes if it allowed goods from the EU freely into NI, even if tariffs were still legally due.

It would only be an issue if the goods go through customs or free zones and are systematically unchecked. The potential fudge is to simply inform importers about free zones locations for customs clearance purposes, if they go to them everything is good, if they don't they will have issues later whether it is in Irish ports/airports or other member states. Also Irish authorities can do random checks on roads which if I'm not mistaken is already the case.

PS: Unless I'm missing a regulation, the only location requirement for free zones is that they are in the Union custom territory.

@Paul the Wolf what do you think about this topic?

 

[MikeUpNorth]

It would only be an issue if the goods go through customs or free zones and are systematically unchecked. The potential fudge is to simply inform importers about free zones locations for customs clearance purposes, if they go to them everything is good, if they don't they will have issues later whether it is in Irish ports/airports or other member states. Also Irish authorities can do random checks on roads which if I'm not mistaken is already the case.

PS: Unless I'm missing a regulation, the only location requirement for free zones is that they are in the Union custom territory.

@Paul the Wolf what do you think about this topic?

Interesting. So why can’t the UK do the same thing regarding the NI border, maintaining tariffs without physical infrastructure at the NI border, without running into WTO issues?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

It would only be an issue if the goods go through customs or free zones and are systematically unchecked. The potential fudge is to simply inform importers about free zones locations for customs clearance purposes, if they go to them everything is good, if they don't they will have issues later whether it is in Irish ports/airports or other member states. Also Irish authorities can do random checks on roads which if I'm not mistaken is already the case.

PS: Unless I'm missing a regulation, the only location requirement for free zones is that they are in the Union custom territory.

@Paul the Wolf what do you think about this topic?

I haven't read all of what you've been discussing so sorry if there are points you covered ,but if there are goods circulating in the EU or in Ireland (as part of the EU) which have not have their duties paid or the VAT paid or documentation that the goods comply EU standards and have passed the necessary phytosanitary or veterinary checks with all relevant certifcates, people are going to be in serious trouble. They cannot be in free circulation within the country.

As in all EU countries customs checks can take place within the countries . Where I live there are regular customs checks about 30km north on the motorway which is a specifically built customs post but is hidden from the road and regularly they send all commercial vehicles in and check every single one.
They also do regular checks 20km south in a service area.
There is a myth that once goods have got into the EU are they can freely travel around without checks.

All goods in circulation would have to comply completely whether all have been actually physically checked is another matter but if there are goods that don't comply , big problems and seizures for those responsible.

Have come across problems with UK customs where they didn't charge the correct tariffs , didn't send the VAT owed to the EU that they should have and allowed the importation of goods into the UK that did not comply with EU regulations.
UK customs couldn't cope properly back then , god knows how they would cope having to check everything and the documentation is even more constraining than the goods themselves.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Spoiler: eur.1

An example of one of the many documents required for the movement of goods in the EU.

 

[JPRouve]

Interesting. So why can’t the UK do the same thing regarding the NI border, maintaining tariffs without a hard border, without running into WTO issues?

I could be wrong but pretending and providing a way to control could be enough for both sides. One of the thing that I have in mind is that french Guyana's border with Brazil isn't totally controlled due to the nature of the terrain. So while they do check and the military patrols the Amazon, goods can easily go through without ever seeing a custom officer.
But to be honest, it's not a solution and you are right to say that ultimately it's an issue for everyone.

@Paul the Wolf, that's what I said earlier and why I pointed to the fact that other member states are protected by the fact that Ireland is an island, they can do all the checks necessary wherever they want. While stamps are supposed to be provided at entry points, other custom offices can do it later.

 

[RedChip]

Excellent article.in the Graun

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rer-brexiters-worse-off-working-class-leavers

Did you read the whole article? I like Gary's articles and that's a good article, but the overall conclusion you could draw is that voting for Brexit because of sovereignty is stupid since you cannot really have the sort of sovereinty they imagined in the modern world.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I could be wrong but pretending and providing a way to control could be enough for both sides. One of the thing that I have in mind is that french Guyana's border with Brazil isn't totally controlled due to the nature of the terrain. So while they do check and the military patrols the Amazon, goods can easily go through without ever seeing a custom officer.
But to be honest, it's not a solution and you are right to say that ultimately it's an issue for everyone.

@Paul the Wolf, that's what I said earlier and why I pointed to the fact that other member states are protected by the fact that Ireland is an island, they can do all the checks necessary wherever they want. While stamps are supposed to be provided at entry points, other custom offices can do it later.

Sorry, what I meant is that if the goods are circulating in Ireland they should already have all the stamps and documentation and all duties, VAT paid by the importers, ie have to be fully compliant even if they haven't been physically checked but could still be re-checked/checked after they have entered the territory.

 

[horsechoker]

Spoiler: eur.1

An example of one of the many documents required for the movement of goods in the EU.

Brits love a bit of bureaucracy

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I could be wrong but pretending and providing a way to control could be enough for both sides. One of the thing that I have in mind is that french Guyana's border with Brazil isn't totally controlled due to the nature of the terrain. So while they do check and the military patrols the Amazon, goods can easily go through without ever seeing a custom officer.
But to be honest, it's not a solution and you are right to say that ultimately it's an issue for everyone.

That sounds right to me.

If there is a ‘no deal’ exit, I think we’ll end up in a standoff with each side wanting the other to be the first to make any move that looks like a physical border or customs checks. It will be a political blame game, while we all suffer.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

I thought this short film about one of those small towns captured the hopelessness of life pretty well.

Thanks for posting that, I enjoyed it, if that's possible to say.

 

[4bars]

I can live and work anywhere in the world mate, so happens the mrs is dutch.

I do too mate, and I did. Also I had more difficulties on some than others. And you didn't asked in your question to remainers if they can or not to work anywhere. Also some of them they have families in UK. You just said in another words " if you don't like Brexit leave". Pretty rich from someone that doesn't like the EU and loves Brexit but lives in the EU but doesn't fly over UK to enjoy the greatness of Brexit

But I guess I am the only one that sees the analogy, apparently

 

[caid]

• The backstop provision in the withdrawal agreement is dropped.
• The United Kingdom permanently delegates all trade policy matters in goods to a newly created European Customs Association (ECA) in which the EU is also a member. Neither the EU nor the UK pursues independent trade policies, and the ECA represents them the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the same way as the EU has done until now for all 28 EU members.
• The UK has voting rights in the ECA, as do all other member states. Together with the other members of the ECA, it mandates the EU Commission to negotiate trade agreements with third parties.
• Decisions are taken with a double majority as defined in the Lisbon Treaty, and the European Court of Justice (in an extended form including all participating countries) continues to supervise all law- and policy-making in the field of trade.
• The ECA covers all ‘classical‘ areas of trade policy, such as tariffs, quotas, rules of origin, trade defense, etc. On these issues, the EU has exclusive competence.
• Areas in which the EU has no exclusive competence and in which countries have veto rights (trade in services, intellectual property, direct foreign investment, audiovisual and cultural services, and social, educational and health services), should not fall under the ECA. During a transition period, the pertinent provisions in the EU treaties continue to apply. For the future, arrangements in these areas are made by means of one or several supplementary bilateral agreements.
• In existing trade agreements with third parties, provisions pertaining to ‘classical‘ areas or areas covered by bilateral agreements continue to apply to the UK, as well as those currently or in future negotiated

Basically, the EU compromises on free movement of labour (they make arguments as to why the supposed indivisibility of the four freedoms should be reviewed in their policy paper), and the UK compromises on an autonomous trade policy and full regulatory control.

At this stage it’s completly unrealistic, in my opinion, that either side would be willing to give up these red lines. However, the paper makes a well reasoned detailed argument for why they should, and I think it’s interesting that a very prominent European economic think tank is publicly arguing this.

I could vaguely understand why Ireland might be inclined to accept an agreement like that but don't see why Poland or Italy for example would. I can see the advantage for Britain (it sounds pretty perfect for Britain actually) but it looks like a lot of compromises for the EU without many advantages (keeping the British as trading partners and maintaining the GFA seems about it?)

 

[Stanley Road]

I do too mate, and I did. Also I had more difficulties on some than others. And you didn't asked in your question to remainers if they can or not to work anywhere. Also some of them they have families in UK. You just said in another words " if you don't like Brexit leave". Pretty rich from someone that doesn't like the EU and loves Brexit but lives in the EU but doesn't fly over UK to enjoy the greatness of Brexit

But I guess I am the only one that sees the analogy, apparently

My mrs is dutch, we are not married. The original comment from some bloke said people perhaps could not move to mainland europe cos of family or career commitments, what career? If you guys are to be believed there will be no jobs in april. So which is it?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

That sounds right to me.

If there is a ‘no deal’ exit, I think we’ll end up in a standoff with each side wanting the other to be the first to make any move that looks like a physical border or customs checks. It will be a political blame game, while we all suffer.

What would have to happen is that any exports into Ireland and thus EU would have to all the necessary documents completed, any tariffs paid and and VAT by Ireland and of course live animals etc would have to have the necessary inspections made before they entered Ireland. What the Irish Republic would have to do is an unknown because no-one knows the regulations that will apply in the UK (NI). This still does not involve a physical border but makes things ultra-complicated. Smuggling will be rife.

So the chap in Belfast who just wanted to send a consignment to Dublin and previously just stuck it on a lorry with an invoice and a packing list has to get all the relevant documentation in order before sending it. Loads of administration, time and money.

 

[4bars]

Specialists/surgeons I tutor online from quite a few countries want to have the US and UK on their CVs as they believe they're still the two best healthcare systems to have experience in.

What marketing does...

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I could vaguely understand why Ireland might be inclined to accept an agreement like that but don't see why Poland or Italy for example would. I can see the advantage for Britain (it sounds pretty perfect for Britain actually) but it looks like a lot of compromises for the EU without many advantages (keeping the British as trading partners and maintaining the GFA seems about it?)

Adding the UK economy to its block in trade negotiations with other countries is a decent advantage. Increased market size is increased leverage.

 

[caid]

Adding the UK economy to its block in trade negotiations with other countries is a decent advantage. Increased market size is increased leverage.

yeah ....
Just seems like if you were given it then half the current members would leave and look for a similar deal. Which is kind of fair enough ... maybe thats the long term way forward. Cant see it being agreed to right now though.

 

[Buster15]

Regarding the Irish Backstop and border issue, there is an interesting report on the BBC website related to the current border between Norway and Sweden.
The border functions perfectly well and has done by using current electronic technology.

So...why was this relatively simple solution not identified as a solution in the WA instead of the highly contentious Backstop.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

The backstop is only a temporary arrangement anyway until the UK either decide to stay in the CU/SM after the talks due to start in April or until the new technology gets invented.

Any future arrangement will have a cost, thus the main reasons for the UK leaving is wanting their own trade policy , not paying for the benefits they have in the EU amongst others don't think this is going to fly from the UK side nevermind the EU. Pff.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Regarding the Irish Backstop and border issue, there is an interesting report on the BBC website related to the current border between Norway and Sweden.
The border functions perfectly well and has done by using current electronic technology.

So...why was this relatively simple solution not identified as a solution in the WA instead of the highly contentious Backstop.

Can you see a border?

 

[JPRouve]

Regarding the Irish Backstop and border issue, there is an interesting report on the BBC website related to the current border between Norway and Sweden.
The border functions perfectly well and has done by using current electronic technology.

So...why was this relatively simple solution not identified as a solution in the WA instead of the highly contentious Backstop.

Because it's an actual border with relatively heavy infrastructures. While it's very smooth it's also very visible.

 

[Ubik]

Feels like we've gone back in time a year with the repeated conversations.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

My mrs is dutch, we are not married. The original comment from some bloke said people perhaps could not move to mainland europe cos of family or career commitments, what career? If you guys are to be believed there will be no jobs in april. So which is it?

I've just realised that you're shouting away in an echo chamber. There's conversations running that are taking no notice of you because they obviously have you blocked.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Feels like we've gone back in time a year with the repeated conversations.

Also that people believe that all the possibilities have not been discussed, rediscussed and rediscussed again between the EU and the UK.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Because it's an actual border with relatively heavy infrastructures. While it's very smooth it's also very visible.

And of course Norway and Sweden are both in the EEA.

 

[Buster15]

The backstop is only a temporary arrangement anyway until the UK either decide to stay in the CU/SM after the talks due to start in April or until the new technology gets invented.

Any future arrangement will have a cost, thus the main reasons for the UK leaving is wanting their own trade policy , not paying for the benefits they have in the EU amongst others don't think this is going to fly from the UK side nevermind the EU. Pff.

 

[Buster15]

Thanks for this. My point though is that the recent HoC vote which actioned Mrs May to go back to the EU to try to reopen the Backstop issue talked about 'using alternative technology' or wording to that effect. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I was just wondering why this existing practice has not been identified or followed. The EU already knows that it operates effectively and assuming the UK doesn't remain in THE CU border control in Ireland will be necessary won't it.