Brexit (Old)

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

One might think so. But Barnier has been loud and strong on not in anyway compromising the 4 pillars of the EU. If it wasn't so important to the people in the Irish island it would make for fun letting the EU stew on their pedantry.

It’s up to the Irish as to what security controls they want to have at the border. If the U.K. and Ireland don’t want a hard border then there doesn’t have to be one.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It’s up to the Irish as to what security controls they want to have at the border. If the U.K. and Ireland don’t want a hard border then there doesn’t have to be one.

If either country wants to follow WTO rules and keep different rules in key areas from the other, they won't qualify for WTO membership without a hard border. If the Eurosceptics had a workable solution to this problem, why would they withdraw it from publication?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If either country wants to follow WTO rules and keep different rules in key areas from the other, they won't qualify for WTO membership without a hard border.

Why not?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Why not?

It's a WTO requirement unless we give zero tariffs to every country in the world which is not on the agenda.
Per Professor O’Donoghue of Durham Law School

“If the UK chooses not impose any tariffs on goods coming across the [Irish] border… that would mean that the UK is giving the EU (because Ireland is the EU in this context) complete open access. So its most favoured nation tariff is zero. That means it would have to give a zero tariff access to every single country in the WTO.”

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3058337

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's a WTO requirement unless we give zero tariffs to every country in the world which is not on the agenda.
Per Professor O’Donoghue of Durham Law School

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3058337

How does that answer Pierre's question as to why there has to be a hard border? It merely comments on the Most-Favoured-Nation rule.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

How does that answer Pierre's question as to why there has to be a hard border? It merely comments on the Most-Favoured-Nation rule.

I had hoped that it answers the question succinctly, accurately and provides a link to supporting material. I'm not sure how I can help you further on this but maybe someone else can.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's a WTO requirement unless we give zero tariffs to every country in the world which is not on the agenda.
Per Professor O’Donoghue of Durham Law School

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3058337

Where does it say that there has to be an EU imposed hard border?

In any event, nobody is saying that there won’t be tarriffs and other checks, but you don’t need physical infrastructure to achieve it it.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Where does it say that there has to be an EU imposed hard border?

In any event, nobody is saying that there won’t be tarriffs and other checks, but you don’t need physical infrastructure to achieve it it.

If the EU members didn't have hard borders with countries that are not aligned through the single market and customs union then the EU ceases to become compliant with WTO regulations unless it has zero tariffs with every country and it has no intention of doing so. Otherwise, you will be letting through goods that have different standards (eg chlorinated chicken) or are subsidised (eg US maize) or have tariffs on (eg Chinese-made cars) which will damage the single market. So not EU-imposed, but they would probably be the messenger boy as the EU is the WTO member.
No serious player now believes that wishful thinking about no physical infrastructure being needed for a hard border. The Irish border is the elephant in the room and always has been.
From a hard/clean Brexit point of view, keeping NI in the EU customs union and the single market is probably the best solution given the interdependent nature of the two countries making up the island of Ireland, but getting the DUP on board may be tricky.

[1andrew1]

Hmm, I know that things have understandably got heated in the Brexit debate but BoJo describing the Chequers plan a suicide vest is in very poor taste.

Foreign Office minister Sir Alan Duncan criticised his former boss, saying the article was "one of the most disgusting moments in modern British politics."
If this latest broadside was not the end of Mr Johnson's political career, "I will make sure it is later", he said.

Former Army officer and member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee Tom Tugendhat graphically described the aftermath of a suicide bomb that had gone off near his office in Helmand province, Afghanistan.
He said comparing such an attack to the PM's plans "isn't funny", adding: "Some need to grow up".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45462900

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Where does it say that there has to be an EU imposed hard border?

In any event, nobody is saying that there won’t be tarriffs and other checks, but you don’t need physical infrastructure to achieve it it.

Problem is WTO rules require hard borders.

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

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Angua

Problem is WTO rules require hard borders.

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

I think you’re really saying that WTO rules imply hard borders.

There is no written WTO rule about hard borders. And the NI customs border can be policed by more modern means via technology.

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------

I’ve changed my position. I previously had reached the point of admitting that remaining in the EU would be better than Chequers, provided that we could continue sticking it to the EC.

However, today’s report in the Sunday Times that Merkel is pushing for a German to take over from Juncker when his term is up next year, that German being none other than the arch **** Martin Selmayr, has changed all that.

I’ve repeatedly warned you all about German hegemony; now the United States of Germany is edging closer. We must leave this wretched EU on 29-March.

What technology?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

What technology?

The Canadian customs technology, perhaps?

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I think you’re really saying that WTO rules imply hard borders.

There is no written WTO rule about hard borders. And the NI customs border can be policed by more modern means via technology.

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:26 ----------

I’ve changed my position. I previously had reached the point of admitting that remaining in the EU would be better than Chequers, provided that we could continue sticking it to the EC.

However, today’s report in the Sunday Times that Merkel is pushing for a German to take over from Juncker when his term is up next year, that German being none other than the arch **** Martin Selmayr, has changed all that.

I’ve repeatedly warned you all about German hegemony; now the United States of Germany is edging closer. We must leave this wretched EU on 29-March.

This article, shows why how we trade may cause problems, if we do not have the right agreements.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The Canadian customs technology, perhaps?

Please elaborate?