Cable Forum - Brexit (Old)

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Brexit (Old) (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33706539)

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)

Btw, even if it’s not going to be Selmayr, but another German, my United States of Germany description still stands. Merkel wants to tighten Germany’s grip on the EU.

Is that what the Remainers want?

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angua (Post 35962669)

Problem is WTO rules require hard borders.

Not in the EU and looking to use WTO rules and NI border becomes a huge issue.

WTO does not require hard borders.

https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/...their-borders/

We could, I repeat, could, fall foul of MFN most favoured nation rule, if another wto member complained.

In the meantime, a technological solution can be explored and implemented. The EU have already undertaken a study on a model for a frictionless border in N.I.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegDat...9596828_EN.pdf

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35962721)

From your link

Quote:

Where the UK might run into trouble is under the WTO’s non-discrimination rules, particularly “most-favoured-nation” treatment (MFN), which means treating one’s trading partners equally

Suppose the UK and EU trade on WTO terms after Brexit. Suppose American apples arriving in the UK at an English port have to go through controls, but Irish apples crossing the border into Northern Ireland (also the UK) do not. Then the US could complain that its apples were discriminated against. They weren’t given equal treatment with Irish apples when they entered the UK.

The US might seek a legal ruling in WTO dispute settlement. Months or years later, the ruling might conclude that the UK had discriminated. So either checks at the English ports would have to be dropped, or checks at the Irish border would have to be set up.

In other words, while no WTO rule actually says the UK will have to set up border checks, the non-discrimination rule may force it to.

That’s quite different from saying “every member must secure their borders”. In a system where nuance matters, the difference is important.

(Note the “might” and “may”. It’s possible that an in-depth legal ruling might disagree with the US’s claim in that example. After all, the difference is at the ports and not with the products themselves, although the US could counter that having to ship through Ireland in order to avoid checks adds to its costs. Until there is a real case we cannot say for certain. But legal opinion seems to take the view that the UK would be violating non-discrimination.)

Everyone keeps saying ‘a Technology solution’ can be implemented - anyone who thinks a major technological solution with supporting infrastructure, processes, and training can be implemented in six months has never actually implemented one.

They haven’t even begunn the tender process...

There is an interesting (non-biased) article in Wired about the challenges.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/iris...er-brexit-tech

Don’t forget, the UK’s EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (section 10.2b) stipulates that no new ‘physical infrastructure be created, including border posts, checks or controls.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35962755)

From your link

Duh....that’s what I said????

Quote:

We could, I repeat, could, fall foul of MFN most favoured nation rule, if another wto member complained.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)

But you also said

Quote:

WTO does not require hard borders

and the article also states

Quote:

In other words, while no WTO rule actually says the UK will have to set up border checks, the non-discrimination rule may force it to.

Which contradicts that...

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35962759)

But you also said and the article also states

Which contradicts that...

Exactly.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35962759)

But you also said and the article also states

Which contradicts that...

. “May”

FFS......Read the article.

There is no contradiction, engage brain before posting.

The WTO does not require a hard border.

However, another member of the WTO may object under the MFN rule. ( not guaranteed and would take some time). In the mean time a solution could be sought.

Just read the article....................

---------- Post added at 20:59 ---------- Previous post was at 20:59 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35962760)

Exactly.

Read the article, and engage your brain.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35962766)

However, another member of the WTO may object under the MFN rule. ( not guaranteed and would take some time). In the mean time a solution could be sought.

If a solution could be found, why wouldn't it be deployed first time round to save winding up potential trading partners by waiting for them to complain before deploying it? It couldn't and I suspect that I am not alone in deducing this.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35962768)

If a solution could be found, why wouldn't it be deployed first time.

I’m sure it would.

Just draw a line under this particular discussion, you & others, have stated that the WTO “demand”. that we have a hard border.

That isn’t the case. Now that we have laid that myth to bed we can move on to something else.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35962768)

Why are they installing public loos along side the route to the Euro-tunnel?

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)

Please let's try to be polite.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35962782)

If countries followed your understanding of WTO rules then I would expect there to be some soft borders between countries whose regulations and tariffs are not harmonised. There are no such examples.

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35962792)

If countries followed your understanding of WTO rules then I would expect there to be some soft borders between countries whose regulations and tariffs are not harmonised. There are no such examples.

Would the borders between Sweden and Norway and lots of countries and Switzerland be considered soft borders. See here for the implications of soft borders - https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...ders-1.2829910

I was away last week with colleagues from two EU countries and a country that wants to join the EU. Later, I will summarise their opinions on Brexit discussed over a few beers...

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35961550)

some read the leaflet posted through the door explaining exactly what brexit was.

You remember the famous leaflet that was "posted through the door explaining exactly what brexit was"? Can you remind me which Brexit did it exactly explain?

1. No Deal (WTO)
2. Chequers
3. Canada+
4. EFTA

---------- Post added at 14:48 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ----------

At least he is now trying honesty:

I can’t promise life will be rosy after Brexit, says Liam Fox

Quote:

Leaving the European Union would not guarantee a rosy economic future for the UK, the international trade secretary Liam Fox has admitted.

In a frank assessment of Britain’s prospects Dr Fox said that fellow Brexiteers needed to beware of succumbing to “irrational positivity”.

He said that Brexit offered opportunities but the UK would still be subjected to “buffeting pressures in the global economy” that the government would not be able to control."

"Dr Fox also explicitly criticised the former Leave campaign, led by Mr Johnson, for promising an extra £350 million a week for the NHS, although he acknowledged that this might have helped to sway voters.

"I was never particularly comfortable with the numbers,” he said. “although he acknowledged that this might have helped to sway voters."

Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35962270)

There is no point in even trying to communicate with a mind so closed to leaving the EU as yours is so i will continue not bothering to try .

Read and inwardly digest the above post .