Thread: Brexit (Old)
View Single Post
Old 09-09-2018, 20:18   #1173
Hugh
laeva recumbens anguis
Cable Forum Team
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 68
Services: Premiere Collection
Posts: 43,621
Hugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden aura
Hugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden aura
Re: Brexit Discussion (Follow First Post Rules!)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
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
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.
__________________
Thank you for calling the Abyss.
If you have called to scream, please press 1 to be transferred to the Void, or press 2 to begin your stare.

If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.

Last edited by Hugh; 09-09-2018 at 20:34.
Hugh is offline