Brexit (Old)

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Mick

Who the hell is going to build a non-existent border that the EU said they don't want?

The Irish won't.

The UK won't so who will have jurisdiction, who will send soldiers to man a non-existent border noone wants ?

under WTO rules they have to be a hard border in a no deal Brexit as we have to use WTO rules then as said earlier if it was easy we have a deal with EU by now

both side have said stumbling block for deal is Ireland border as most of rest of deal is done

[Gavin78]

If there rest of the deal is done then why is everyone prepared for a no deal?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Mick

Who is "they"?

I am Brexiteer who exercised my democratic right to vote to leave the EU - that is where my responsibility ended.

I am not in Government to enact the result or carry out the choice that was decided.

Same old crap: I voted Leave with no plan but it's not my fault that we ended up in this mess.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Dave42

under WTO rules they have to be a hard border in a no deal Brexit as we have to use WTO rules then as said earlier if it was easy we have a deal with EU by now

both side have said stumbling block for deal is Ireland border as most of rest of deal is done

Could you link to this rule as you seem to know so much about it?
Preferably from the WTO site.

[Sephiroth]

Much as I would like Dave42 to flounder on Pip's question, there is no WTO rule that requires the UK to establish a border for trade purposes.

However, if we don't, then there must be no discrimination by the UK as between the EU and other nations who are entitled to trade with us under the same terms. i.e. no tariffs.

In practice this could be difficult going from the UK to Ireland in that tariffs between the EU and other nations will need to be preserved by the EU. They/Ireland will have to set up a border.

If we set any trade agreements that differ in tariff or other regulation from the EU, then a border will be needed by the EU.

The EU and UK should agree to work on the technical solutions rather than the EU be obdurate so they can keep us in the CU.

Originally Posted by pip08456

Could you link to this rule as you seem to know so much about it?
Preferably from the WTO site.

How about some recent comments from the Head of the WTO about the impact of a no-deal (nothing about WTO and a hard border, as that is an EU/U.K. thing).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a8505946.html

It is “not realistic” to believe the UK can begin trading under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules the day after Brexit in March, the head of the intergovernmental group has said.

“I was a trade negotiator; I negotiated trade deals my whole life and I’m very realistic about how fast you can go with those deals.” WTO director-general Roberto Azevêdo told the BBC’s Today programme.

“The moment that other countries begin to sense an opportunity to increase their market share or increase a quota here or there, they are going to go for that.

“There is going to be a lot of uncertainty here; there will be ... unpredictability and people who are making investments are going to take that into account.”

Most predictions about the impact of a no-deal scenario have been based on trading under WTO rules after Brexit, which is due to happen in seven months’ time.

But Mr Azevêdo said it was “very unlikely that you’re going to have a 100 per cent agreed outcome for all WTO members between now and March”.

If an agreement is not reached with the EU and WTO rules are not immediately available, the UK would be in uncharted territory, as it would be unclear what rules and tariffs apply to imports and exports.

The WTO boss’s comments cast further doubt on the assertion made last month by the UK’s international trade secretary, Liam Fox, that leaving the EU with no agreement would be better than prolonging talks with Brussels, the latter a move he claimed would be a “complete betrayal” of voters.

If the UK does shift to WTO rules, Mr Azevêdo said some sectors will face significantly higher tariffs.

“It’s not going to be the end of the world, in the sense that trade is going to stop and that everything is going to fall down, no. But it’s not going to be a walk in the park either,” he added.

The only thing I can find relating to the WTO and a hard border is this FT article, which is mostly about the same stuff as above.

https://www.ft.com/content/4f0ea43e-...a-7342fe5e173f

The WTO could also object to Britain’s proposed border system with the EU, the so-called facilitated customs arrangements. UK trade secretary Mr Fox said last month that: “There is no way with a system that has never been tested before to know whether the WTO will regard it as compliant.”

And there’s this from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the recent Tory Party conference.

https://www.politico.eu/article/phil...o-brexit-deal/

Philip Hammond: UK will enforce hard border in Ireland if there is no Brexit deal

BIRMINGHAM, England — Britain would have to enforce controls on the Irish border if the U.K. leaves the European Union without a deal, Chancellor Philip Hammond said Monday.

In remarks that appear to undermine the official government position that the U.K. will do all it can to avoid border checks after Brexit, Hammond said that under World Trade Organization rules, London would have no choice but to reinstate checks.

Speaking at a fringe event at the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham, Hammond said: “The challenges around the Irish border are around the legal requirements we will have if we are not in a trade bloc within the European Union to operate the WTO-compliant border, which does require checks at the border. That’s what the WTO rules require.”

“We are depending on the WTO to regulate our relations with the rest of the world, we will have to comply with the rest of WTO regulations or we will find we can’t enforce our WTO rights against others,” he said.

[Sephiroth]

… and what Hugh has posted is the reason we should have stayed in that rotten, undemocratic, EU? Working to the agenda of Germany and its French running dog? With the Irish tail wagging the UK dog?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Much as I would like Dave42 to flounder on Pip's question, there is no WTO rule that requires the UK to establish a border for trade purposes

Mmm ...

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...r-after-brexit

A hard land border: almost inevitable if we leave the EU without a deal
Professor O’Donoghue explains that “the harder the Brexit, the harder the border.”

At what she calls the “very extreme” end of the spectrum is a hard border where the UK leaves with no deal and has to default to World Trade Organisation rules.

If the UK defaults to WTO rules (using copied-and-pasted versions of the EU’s tariffs in the short term), the EU would still have to maintain its side of the border. That would require check goods coming into Ireland from the UK.

That’s because the EU’s existence as a free trade area depends on its ability to demonstrate to the WTO that it can control its external borders properly.


A one-way land border: possible, but undesirable

The EU would need a physical border to check goods coming into the Republic of Ireland from Northern Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Although in theory, the UK could decide not to impose checks on goods moving the other way (i.e. from the Republic into Northern Ireland). This could make a hard border slightly softer.

But there’s a catch: under WTO rules, unless you’re in a free trade bloc like the EU or NAFTA, you have to obey the “most favoured nation” rule.

That means if you lower trade tariffs for one trading partner, you have to lower tariffs to all your other partners. Professor O’Donoghue explains:

“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.”

Now, the idea of the UK scrapping tariffs altogether isn’t entirely out of the question, according to some advocates for hard Brexit. Regular FactCheck readers might remember this proposal featured on the famous “Wetherspoon manifesto”, and was printed on half a million beermats across the pub chain’s 800-odd branches.

But doing so could have a devastating impact on UK businesses.

Back to our researchers at the Universities of Birmingham, Durham and Newcastle, who explain: “the impact upon the agri-food and farming sector is particularly revealing. Most agricultural products and livestock are subject to EU import tariffs of between 6% and 22%.”

“UK agri-food products would either have to compete with heavily subsided EU produce on the global market… or target sales within the UK to avoid import duties. It is likely that suppliers will use the cheapest available option which, due to CAP subsidies, may very well still be EU products”.

In other words, abolishing import tariffs could mean that UK producers are priced-out of UK and EU markets.

[Sephiroth]

From Varoufakis:

"In truth, Brussels is a democracy-free zone. From the EU’s inception in 1950, Brussels became the seat of a bureaucracy administering a heavy industry cartel, vested with unprecedented law-making capacities. Even though the EU has evolved a great deal since, and acquired many of the trappings of a confederacy, it remains in the nature of the beast to treat the will of electorates as a nuisance that must be, somehow, negated. The whole point of the EU’s inter-governmental organisation was to ensure that only by a rare historical accident would democratic mandates converge and, when they did, never restrain the exercise of power in Brussels.

In June 2016, Britain voted, for better or for worse, for Brexit. May suddenly metamorphosed from a soft Remainer to a hard Brexiteer. In so doing she is about to fall prey to an EU that will frustrate and defeat her, pushing her into either a humiliating climb-down or a universally disadvantageous outcome. "

---------- Post added at 15:09 ---------- Previous post was at 15:07 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

Mmm ...

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...r-after-brexit

That's how I explained it in shorter terms.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Could you link to this rule as you seem to know so much about it?
Preferably from the WTO site.

As you know so little about it, why don't you do some research on the subject? Here's a starter:

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

What WTO rules say

First, a fact:

There is no rule in the WTO requiring its member governments to secure their borders.

After Brexit, the UK could drop all border controls for traded goods and services and it would be perfectly within its WTO rights.

And yet there was some truth in what Anna Soubry said. Independent.ie was much farther off the mark. And the hard Brexiters are completely at sea.

Here’s why:

- The WTO does not tell countries what to do other than to keep their promises (abide by the WTO agreements and their WTO commitments)

- Even when countries break their WTO promises, there is no “confrontation” with “the WTO” and least of all with “WTO officials”

- The WTO is member-driven. If in the future other WTO countries believe the UK is violating an agreement, it is they, not the WTO bureaucracy, who will act. They can do so by complaining in a WTO meeting or filing a legal challenge in WTO dispute settlement
Since there is no WTO rule requiring governments to secure their borders, failing to do so would not break any specific agreement

- 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.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I would agree that "we" got what we wanted in terms of a time safety net.

BUT …. TM has been forced to go back on her December 2017 backstop declaration that the UK would indefinitely remain in the CU in the absence of a future relationship deal with the EU.

There is no reason for optimism that the EU would assist in reaching a long term deal with the UK on any timeline, especially if we are tied into their CU.

You've turned the border argument on its head by saying there is a need to show that any proposed solution to the Northern Ireland/Republic problem has a firm timeline. The problem here is if the EU doesn't agree a solution within that so called "firm timeline", we would be tied to the CU.

I get your point. The danger of an unlimited length backstop agreement is the loss of urgency in reaching an agreement by December 2020 or possibly a year later. I guess the question comes down to confidence - we will reach an agreement by these dates and, if yes, will everything be in place to implement this agreement. I remember back when 'technological solutions' were proposed and there was the question could they be in place by the deadline?

It's a tough one - will there be an implementable agreement by the deadlines agreed and, if not, what happen then? More can kicking for Northern Ireland?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

From Varoufakis ...

I think we all agree that the EU needs to improve the Democratic Deficit. It has come a long way but needs to improve.

You mention Varoufakis a lot but he does think that the EU as a project is worthwhile and he recommends we (the UK) stay within it:

Yanis Varoufakis: Why we must save the EU

It is a major error to assume, whether you are a remain or a leave supporter, that the EU is something constant “out there” that you may or may not want to be part of. The EU’s very existence depends on Britain staying in. Greece and Britain are facing the same three options. The first two are represented aptly by the two warring factions within the Tory party: deference to Brussels and exit. They are equally calamitous options. Both lead to the same dystopian future: a Europe fit only for those who flourish in times of a great Depression – the xenophobes, the ultra-nationalists, the enemies of democratic sovereignty. The third option is the only one worth going for: staying in the EU to form a cross-border alliance of democrats, which Europeans failed to manage in the 1930s, but which our generation must now attempt to prevent history repeating itself.

This is precisely what some of us are working towards in creating DiEM25 – the Democracy in Europe Movement, with a view to conjuring up a democratic surge across Europe, a common European identity, an authentic European sovereignty, an internationalist bulwark against both submission to Brussels and hyper-nationalist reaction.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I get your point. The danger of an unlimited length backstop agreement is the loss of urgency in reaching an agreement by December 2020 or possibly a year later. I guess the question comes down to confidence - we will reach an agreement by these dates and, if yes, will everything be in place to implement this agreement. I remember back when 'technological solutions' were proposed and there was the question could they be in place by the deadline?

It's a tough one - will there be an implementable agreement by the deadlines agreed and, if not, what happen then? More can kicking for Northern Ireland?

More or less agreed. That's why I like to quote Varoufakis. I have no confidence in the EU's bona fides.

---------- Post added at 16:23 ---------- Previous post was at 16:20 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

I think we all agree that the EU needs to improve the Democratic Deficit. It has come a long way but needs to improve.

You mention Varoufakis a lot but he does think that the EU as a project is worthwhile and he recommends we (the UK) stay within it:

Yanis Varoufakis: Why we must save the EU

Agreed. I quote Varoufakis simply to say he warned us about those EU tricksters.

I too wanted to remain in the EU - a reformed EU. Of course Cameron was never going to pull that off. The Varoufakis dream cannot be achieved and we are leaving the unreformed EU.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

More or less agreed. That's why I like to quote Varoufakis. I have no confidence in the EU's bona fides.

---------- Post added at 16:23 ---------- Previous post was at 16:20 ----------



Agreed. I quote Varoufakis simply to say he warned us about those EU tricksters.

I too wanted to remain in the EU - a reformed EU. Of course Cameron was never going to pull that off. The Varoufakis dream cannot be achieved and we are leaving the unreformed EU.

But why would they have any faith in ours? Gove has admitted in public that any agreement could be reneged upon in the future.

---------- Post added at 16:31 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

Really interesting analysis of "imminent" FTA with Australia:

https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/sta...58691629338626

1. The UK has started the consultation process for the Australian trade agreement. Australia has already carried out some of this as part of an investigation into a future deal, Brexit, and UK trade in general.

So, shall we see what they have to say about the UK and Brexit?

2. OK, first let’s look at submissions involving strategy:

Sone Australians are concerned of damaging their relationship, with Europe, while not wanting to get caught up into the “possibly unrealistic worldview of the Brexiteers”.

3. Australia shouldn't get drawn into this Anglosphere British worldview against its interest, and it is possible the UK has both overestimated the desire of third countries to trade with it outside of the EU, and underestimated how long it will take to do meaningful deals.

4. The UK is likely to be the distressed negotiator, and it should be possible to extract significant concessions. Alternatively, it may be better to allow a major economy to negotiate those first, and then use the result of those negotiations as a baseline.

5. Australia should not hasten to complete a deal as a result of the uncertain geopolitical and economic climate resulting from Brexit. It should create a forum to facilitate a future deal while focusing on the deal with the European Union.

6. Australia has a strategic advantage from being able to spend years closely monitor the UK’s negotiating position. It should not allow the UK to delay or undermine the negotiations with the European Union.

7. There may be history between Australia and the UK, but nostalgia should not override trade realities. Australia should draw on recent developments to diversify its trade links with Europe and foster greater connections with EU, and non-EU, countries.

8. Secondly, the loss of the Single Market is an issue:

Support should be given to Australian businesses who make use of the Single Market, so they can assess options and adjust their business priorities accordingly. Alternative sources of entry should be extensively explored.

9. Brexit will not affect the EU / Australia trade negotiations. In terms of the UK, businesses could be expected to adapt to new terms being negotiated between the EU and the UK, and structure their investments accordingly. For example, the loss of ‘passporting’ is a key issue.

10. Several Victorian companies with presence in the UK use it as a platform to enter the EU market. The success of the EU/UK negotiations will affect the success and / or expansion plans in the region. One issue being ‘passporting’.

11. The effect on financial services remain unclear, and Brexit may result in the centre of the European financial services sector shifting to mainland Europe. Uncertainty may prompt a rebalance to Asia, which will provide new opportunities for New South Wales.

12. Australian lawyers will not be able to work with UK lawyers to set up businesses in the UK that can then take advantage of the freedom of establishment principle, and Australian lawyers can no longer recommend their clients set up in the UK under the law of England and Wales.

13. Brexit has major implications for UK trade while creating opportunities and challenges for Australia’s trade. Consumer goods between Australia and the UK will likely grow, and Australia can also take advantage of the UK’s loss of competitiveness in Europe.

and so on ..

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by ianch99

As you know so little about it, why don't you do some research on the subject? Here's a starter:

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

I have which is why I asked Dave42 to link to the rule he and others keep harping on about. It doesn't exist.

There is also nothing to stop us entering into a Regional Trade Agreement with the EU which would trump MFN.