Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    That is rather strange argument from you since you clearly are clueless with regards to the WTO. Lack of control over the tariffs (aka border checks) would be interpreted as having no tariffs. Which per the most favored nation clause would mean that the UK would need to extend that to all imports.
    Uh, no. Where does it say that no hard border means no tariffs? No one in the modern era pays their tariff fees actually at the border.
    'Smart' borders and internal checks will be sufficient to win any case any malicious party wants to bring to the WTO.

    Besides which the UK has said firmly and repeatedly that it wants to continue to trade on a tariff free basis with the EU.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Surrey View Post
      https://www.investopedia.com/article...it-effects.asp

      As I have said before. We could just zero our tariffs from April 19. Reducing tariffs will counter the inflationary pressures currently building in the UK economy and enable interest rates to be kept low encouraging investment.

      The UK economy is heavily service based - 80% and is consumer driven. it is more similar to the US rather than Europe.
      The UK can set tariffs on imports at zero. Why does anything think that will mean other countries will set tariffs on UK exports at zero?
      "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
      validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
      "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
        Uh, no. Where does it say that no hard border means no tariffs? No one in the modern era pays their tariff fees actually at the border.
        Not necessarily at the border but that is where they are tracked. Unless you are gullible beyond belief it would be fairly obvious that a system where they would not be tracked would just be abused. But this really hasn't got anything to do with the EU - if the UK chooses to not watch its borders that is UK's choice (and so are the consequences as well).
        'Smart' borders and internal checks will be sufficient to win any case any malicious party wants to bring to the WTO.
        How come such smart borders do not exist anywhere then? US-Canada is not such. Sweden/Finland-Norway is not such (for lorries/trucks that is, it is such for non-commercial traffic though). Trying to describe a system that doesn't exist is not really helpful.
        Besides which the UK has said firmly and repeatedly that it wants to continue to trade on a tariff free basis with the EU.
        And the EU has said that FTA is possible - but that still doesn't absolve the question with regards to the Ireland. Nor does it really remove the need for the border either. Keep in mind that there is considerable difference between the free trade (FTA) and the frictionless trade (Single Market).
        It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
          Not necessarily at the border but that is where they are tracked. Unless you are gullible beyond belief it would be fairly obvious that a system where they would not be tracked would just be abused. But this really hasn't got anything to do with the EU - if the UK chooses to not watch its borders that is UK's choice (and so are the consequences as well).
          Get a grip - the border is 310 miles long with 275 different crossing points. Anyone who wants to smuggle things across pretty much can without a Troubles like security set-up. The answer is not to sweat the small stuff.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gooner View Post
            Get a grip - the border is 310 miles long with 275 different crossing points. Anyone who wants to smuggle things across pretty much can without a Troubles like security set-up. The answer is not to sweat the small stuff.
            So why is the UK so hell bent on trying to create a situation where it becomes a necessity to have that security check? Keep in mind that it is impossible to have all three of the following:
            • Separation from SM & CU (aka Brexit is Brexit)
            • Not have a border in the Irish Sea
            • Not have a hard border
            You can have any two of those. That is the reason why the EU suggested having a regulatory border run in the Irish Sea. There are suggestions of trying to create a fudge by mixing up the border related points by having some checks at harbors and others at border to reduce the tension caused by the border but even that would require there to be both actual border and border infrastructure (to a certain extent).
            It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
              So why is the UK so hell bent on trying to create a situation where it becomes a necessity to have that security check? Keep in mind that it is impossible to have all three of the following:
              Oh, give yourself a break will you

              • Separation from SM & CU (aka Brexit is Brexit)
              • Not have a border in the Irish Sea
              • Not have a hard border
              You can have any two of those. That is the reason why the EU suggested having a regulatory border run in the Irish Sea. There are suggestions of trying to create a fudge by mixing up the border related points by having some checks at harbors and others at border to reduce the tension caused by the border but even that would require there to be both actual border and border infrastructure (to a certain extent).
              Nothing wrong with fudge. We're good with that. Guess that's another thing that marks us out from you Continental types.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                There are suggestions of trying to create a fudge by mixing up the border related points by having some checks at harbors and others at border to reduce the tension caused by the border but even that would require there to be both actual border and border infrastructure (to a certain extent).
                If you look at what Barnier and Ireland have done in "de-dramatizing" the border, my understanding is that their conclusion was border infrastructure is only needed for phytosanitary checks ie all customs checks can be done away from the border.

                Even the phyosanitary checks at the North-South border could be done away with (at least on the UK side) if NI agrees to accept EU rules as equivalent.

                The only way a North-South hard border will happen is if the EU insists on checks on goods coming south.

                Many in the UK would find it entertaining if the Irish government had to defend splitting Ireland up.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gooner View Post

                  Oh, give yourself a break will you



                  Nothing wrong with fudge. We're good with that. Guess that's another thing that marks us out from you Continental types.
                  That's because us Continental types have to factor in how a fudge might be abused, and try to head it off in advance. The UK can do anything it likes once it has left, but it won't get much of a hearing for the kind of fudge risking to introduce a Trojan horse of some kind in the EU. I think you might even agree the EU has enough on its plate in that regard already. Had everything been hunkydory with it in the department, probably the UK might have had reasonable expectations of sliding a fudge with the EU, but the way things stand that's probably right out.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Aber View Post
                    If you look at what Barnier and Ireland have done in "de-dramatizing" the border, my understanding is that their conclusion was border infrastructure is only needed for phytosanitary checks ie all customs checks can be done away from the border.

                    Even the phyosanitary checks at the North-South border could be done away with (at least on the UK side) if NI agrees to accept EU rules as equivalent.
                    All this depends on the level the UK would bend its 'Brexit is Brexit' line with regards to the N.I. If it doesn't then trying to fudge it becomes really problematic.The UK choosing to accept the EU standards only helps towards one direction and without regulatory alignment the EU will not agree to go along with mirroring agreement - not at least on long term.
                    The only way a North-South hard border will happen is if the EU insists on checks on goods coming south.
                    As above this really depends on the status of the N.I. after the Brexit. From what i have gathered the EU would prefer there to be as little as possible but it may not be as simple as that especially if the N.I. is not in SM or CU and doesn't have agreed regulatory alignment with the EU in other ways.
                    Many in the UK would find it entertaining if the Irish government had to defend splitting Ireland up.
                    Probably up to the point where the N.I. would vote for joining the RoI...
                    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                      Probably up to the point where the N.I. would vote for joining the RoI...
                      That's what many of us fear might happen.
                      If NI wants to join there's a good chance we'll take them; rationality can often be trumped by emotion. It is funny that the line "Brexit is Brexit" is trotted out so much by the Little Englanders and Unionists since Northern Ireland is not part of Britain.

                      "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                      validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                      "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                      Comment


                      • I am sure the EU can trust the UK to play ball over Custom Fees.........

                        https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...customs-duties

                        Comment


                        • The UK has already agreed that it will ensure that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. It is backsliding on that promise.
                          The UK has agreed to honour its EU budget commitments. Many of the Little Englanders want to backslide on that promise.

                          The word of the UK, it seems, isn't worth much.
                          "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
                          validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
                          "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by E.D. Morel View Post
                            The UK has already agreed that it will ensure that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. It is backsliding on that promise.
                            The UK has agreed to honour its EU budget commitments. Many of the Little Englanders want to backslide on that promise.

                            The word of the UK, it seems, isn't worth much.
                            Europeans have been calling us perfidious Albion since at least the French Revolution when the British objected to the Terror. Hasn't gotten them anywhere.
                            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                              Europeans have been calling us perfidious Albion since at least the French Revolution when the British objected to the Terror. Hasn't gotten them anywhere.
                              The old 'divide and rule' gambit came a cropper this time. No 'Hessians' were recruited so the UK has to learn to fight its own battles.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Surrey View Post

                                Europeans have been calling us perfidious Albion since at least the French Revolution when the British objected to the Terror. Hasn't gotten them anywhere.
                                It has moved on since then. Apparently the UK has not.

                                You've got that one backwards, like oh so many things about Europe the British manage to get wrong. Beginning with the massive dollops of sheer underestimation of it that the current Tory government is amply and repeatedly displaying. (Nothing at Salzburg should have come as anything like a surprise to PM May, and yet apparently did, including the bizarre bit of seriously ticking off a swathe of EU leaders of government by insulting them taking them for fools, while clearly not realizing that was what she was doing).

                                The French during the revolution spotted the incongruousness of the UK allying itself with the absolute monarchies of Europe against them over the turn to republicanism. The terror came later, so is a bit of tacked-on UK ad hoc retroactive historiography, since that lasted only a year, while the UK still fought France before it, and for most of the decade between it and the advent of Napoleon's First Empire. You were called perfidious because, well, you kinda were, politically at least.

                                And oh look, now you're doing it again! Except this time it's the illiberal populists who want an end to the kind of free and open liberal democratic society that is set down in the EU charter:
                                https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8552361.html

                                At some point you tend to end up deserving it you know. And as said, it's one thing to oppose any single European power rising to dominate Europe, at least in principle, and opposing continental Europe as a whole through some mistaken idea of divide et impera, which works rather less well on the EU because it really isn't the same old Europe as the one the UK apparently is referencing. It could be a learning process, except it's unclear if the current tory government is capable of learning. (Too much historical baggage/garbage for it to actually discern the EU through the murk it seems.)

                                (And I said in principle, since after the Napoleonic wars the UK kind of did end up endorsing a dominant European power by default; Russia making up the bulk of the balance of the military power of the Holy Alliance putting down liberal revolutions all over Europe for a couple of decades. The British at the time were sufficiently disgusted by the spectacle to quietly withdraw from the Concert of Powers managing the continent as early as 1822. What the UK claims it wants and what the effects can be are rather different things. Like that Brexit is likely to turn out to be as good an object lesson as any from British history.)

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X