Yes, I just don't see how they properly implement, collect or police those tariffs if there's an open border between NI, UK and EU.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss Amad saving our blushes in a win against Southampton as well as our now annual loss at home to Brighton. They discuss Amorim's post-match comments, revisit how mid-table we may or may not be, and discuss some transfer news.
But the point of the modification is surely to ignore that. At least that's the speculation that I made yesterday otherwise it's just a stupid move.
Yes for sure. Although they are protected from the real world with the transition period. Come next year the enthusiasm may have dampened a bit, the next few months could be a bit tricky with the lunatics running the asylum.
I guess the leaked EU cables in that Guardian article linked just before give the answer to one of the questions:
So they're out to create that division between the EU as a whole and its individual members. I suppose the comment about Barnier's position then also serves to undermine him rather than being based on anything real. That won't affect the EU delegation, since they appear to be seeing through the UK's strategy pretty well; so I guess this is simply all part of the Tories' media strategy to convince people in the UK that the EU is a mess, are acting in bad faith, and that therefore any problems coming out of all this are their fault.One of the EU Cables said:
In practice, it will probably be targeted tariffs, focusing on goods which are not produced in Northern Ireland (of which there are a few). This would include high-value goods and services, possibly a lot focusing on the City of London, as well as goods like Stilton or North Sea fish which the UK values highly even if proportionately they are not worth a lot in trade terms. This would put the squeeze on the UK Government whilst leaving NI (hopefully) free of tariffs.
The UK had an overall trade deficit of -£72 billion with the EU in 2019. A surplus of £23 billion on trade in services was outweighed by a deficit of -£95 billion on trade in goods.
Collecting them would be straightforward - just do not allow any of those goods into the EU without the tariffs being paid.
The UK Government could try to circumvent this by moving all goods through NI, into Ireland and then on to the rest of the EU, but this would add greatly to the length of the supply chain and would impact businesses.
It would also be possible to impact the UK's services exports. Unlike goods trade, services are not restricted by tariff barriers and border checks. Instead, national regulations – on licensing, quotas, professional qualifications and immigration – decide when and how foreign providers are allowed to enter a market. Such non-tariff barriers (NTBs) are complex and hard to assess as they vary by sector and by activity. But there is nothing to prevent NTBs being set up.
I am simply pointing out that across the world all countries seek to protect what they see as their vital interests, including the EU and the UK. In most cases this amounts to protectionism of some kind for certain industries /services and the only way to try to create a so called level playing field is via some form of protectionism that stops others entering your market, whether that be on price, on quality, on health & safety whatever reasons, your level playing field only relates to those things you want it to relate to, and to those countries you want to do business with and its effectively a quid pro quo arrangement.
However in essence this is nothing new in various forms it has existed almost since the first trade deals were ever struck. A 'level playing field' implies some kind of 'fairness' exists, but only to those deemed eligible to enter 'the field' You ask some of the third world countries what they think about 'level playing fields'.
If you are a small country but relatively prosperous, say like Ireland, and already on the field, then clearly you would be mad to want to leave/alter the field . If however you are a large country, but impoverished and can't get on to the field, or even be allowed in some circumstances to approach the gate to the field, then you want to look to somewhere else to do business. This is where the UK will want to seek alternative business outside the EU, so why should it be a threat to the EU? The only reason being that the UK would now be perceived as a threat to the protectionism of EU, even when it would be dealing with countries who are currently, not even allowed to beg at the gates of the EU!
I honestly have no clue how Bojo expects any of the constituent member governments to belief any word he says even if he magically came up with anything they could team up against the other 26. If the consequences weren't so grave it would be amusing watching him make a fool of himself this pompously.
I cannot see anything in the Bill which would prevent the EU27 from imposing tariffs to UK goods due to the UK violating the WA. If tariffs are imposed and we ignore the tariffs then the EU27 can simply refuse to allow the goods to enter their jurisdiction.
The only changes I can make out in the Bill are to disapply customs arrangements between NI and GB, which the UK Government agreed must take place (in certain circumstances) back in January.
From the same team that tried to rush through the bill in the first place.
Tariffs are paid by the importer not the exporter . Johnson agreed to the Customs Border being in the Irish Sea, even if he didn't realise it and whatever happens now there has to be a customs border between the EU and the UK not only between Ireland and the UK but at all the other border points eg Dover.
If Johnson were insane enough to do this then the borders will be virtually sealed. Little would go in or out.
Yes, sorry, my mistake and happy to be corrected. I agree with the rest of what you have said.
Around 150,000 Irish trucks use the 'land bridge' across the UK each year to export goods to the rest of the EU. Two-thirds of Irish goods exporters, I believe.
Yes but if the UK do the unthinkable then passing through the UK would not be an option and the ferries between the north of France and Ireland could become very busy and they will avoid the inevitable queues (even with a deal and no insanity) at Dover and Liverpool/UK Irish Sea port now that there is no customs union with the UK so it could even be quicker strangely enough.
Last edited:
No that's not what you pointed out, you talked absolute nonsense and are now trying to wiggle your way out of it with even more nonsense.
Not sure there is currently anything like the ferry capacity that would be needed to circumvent UK transit. And apparently the sea journey (40 hours minimum) is generally too long for perishable goods.
By the way, my money is still on the UK conceding the major points at the 11th hour to agree an FTA and looking the fool. And then repeated legal skirmishes over interpretation and implementation of the agreement in the years to come.
You confused me here, the issue is with the custom arrangement and the fact that according to the NI protocol in the absence of an FTA the commission are the ones calling the shots in NI and the Irish sea either becomes a border or the UK as a whole have to follow EU laws. My understanding is that the government wants to ignore that part.
Yes, you are right. I think I was talking at cross purposes which confused matters.
I'm a bit late with this, but fantastic headline.
In that scenario the ferries to the UK would no longer be needed so they could be diverted from Dover/Calais for example. The crossing is about 14/18 hours and perishable goods are kept in refrigerated trucks. Even if you add a few extra hours for north/east EU destination goods it could still be a lot quicker than queuing to get across the Irish Sea, driving across the UK and queuing again at Dover and the same on the return journey. I think this route could be used much more even with a deal.
Many things that were taken for granted before this charade will change.
They won't be considered foolish by those who voted for them, it'll be spun as a great victory. They voted for a win and they'll have got a win.
I was contemplating the other day that it's actually a very rare feeling to vote for something and get a direct sense of return/achievement. As much as I'd mock brexiteers reasoning i can certainly understand the value in that. They won't give that up due to details
When was the last time a UK government spoke about plans to break international law in Parliament?Ha, ha... the sort that clears the nostrils and the head and allows you to recognize that a government with an 80 seat majority can do almost anything it wants ...and will!
Boris doesn't care. All he cares about is his rich backers.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...nt-hammond-was-right-to-query-no-deal-backers
Ex-top civil servant: Hammond was right to query no-deal backers
‘They are shorting the pound and the country’ warns Nick Macpherson of Boris Johnson’s hedge fund supporters
Last edited:
Morons who are perfectly happy to trash our economy for what. A pipedream.
Taking back control of our borders? What about the last month. A record net immigration influx of some 350,000.
Some taking back control.
It is ludicrous. The EU have some of the sharpest trade negotiators on the planet, people who are on the detail and know how to calculate the trade offs, while we have a bunch of amateurs who think negotiations are like bluffing and folding in poker.
Not without consequences.
FFS that's why we have trade deals - to agree how these distortions will be smoothed out and the mechanisms for doing so. A level playing field is about eliminating distortions within a free trade area so competition is fair.
Well done for noticing one of the great benefits to us of the single market (which we helped birth) we are about to jettison.
We are free to trade with anyone we want. But it is blindingly obvious that if we want to access the single market, we have to accept the rules that enable that market to work equally for all its participants.
But let's put this another way, about the realities of power, since you seem to understand it in a domestic context: the EU is an economic superpower and thus gets to set the rules of the game. Arguments about "sovereignty" are for children, this is about who has the power and where the leverage and mutual interests lie on each side. The fact is the UK's range of negotiating options is narrower than the EU's, that is just a function of our relative sizes.
fecking A.
Every time I think I can't hate these utter twats more, or that I can't be even more ashamed of our government and frankly much of the population of the country, they find a new and unexpected way to prove me wrong.
Oh man. I feel for you. I’m probably a little unusual for an Irish man in that I’ve a lot of love for Britain and British people. We’re way more similar than most Irish people would like to admit. So it breaks my heart to see what’s happened over there in the last 10 years. Obviously, makes me glad I moved home when I did but it’s such a crying shame to see what’s happened to the place.
Hundreds of years of putting up with you brits and your fecking bullshit
*Cries in Jock*
My newspaper suggested the UK is playing these games to try and get the EU and US to compete with each other to obtain a trade advantage with the UK. Looks like that might not work out quite as planned, then.
That'd be a really, really dumb negotiating strategy. Which makes it very pausible.
Same.