What are the consequences, of not implementing border controls from a UK perspective?
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Frank Fields:
"If the EU wishes to have border controls, so be it. It will be on their heads."
so we take back control to leave open our borders.
We'll get a better brexit if the hard brexiters ask for and accept the help of the the majority of remainer MPs.
"If the EU wishes to have border controls, so be it. It will be on their heads."
so we take back control to leave open our borders.
We'll get a better brexit if the hard brexiters ask for and accept the help of the the majority of remainer MPs.
if we exit the EU on WTO terms, we have to control our borders. That's part of the WTO rules.
People who say we can do this or that contrary to international laws are either ignorant or idiotic.
Is it part of WTO rules?
Have you got a link to the WTO explaining it?
Genuine question, as many countries seem to have open borders between neighbouring countries.
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm
under WTO rules, unless you’re in a free trade bloc like the EU or NAFTA, you have to obey the MFN (most favoured nation) rule.
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 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.
The WTO rules work the other way too, the EU will need to stop goods from coming into the ROI, there is a need to check for regulatory compliance and collect duty and VAT.
That is what the hard brexiters are really after: no tariff on sugar (think of Tate & Lyle), wines (think of Wetherspoons) and meat imported from the cheapest producers. The losers are of course UK producers and exporters. How would we pay bills if we export less and import more and lose jobs because the hard brexiters have removed protection for our domestic producers?
Woosh beat me to it! and in more detail than I can manage too!
I read all of that, but I am struggling to see the bit where it says you actually need a physical border, under WTO rules, in order to meet those obligations,
Of course it would be better if there was a free trade agreement deal on the table, or that Brexit was stopped altogether, then the issue would go away, but if that doesn’t happen, what then, if it’s a choice between a physical border, or some goods movement system in place, which would you choose, because I would be choosing the goods movement system myself.
Not really our problem any more is it?
Why do you keep on about the EU when we have much more pertinent problems here, and theirs are now none of our business.
Brexit has taken care of that.
What happens over there is no longer any of our business, forget it.
Do give over with your boring attacks that no longer matter a Tinkers Cuss.
Ah, but you can't can you, because you like doing business there, and now you are completely at the mercy of what they impose on us to do so.
One of the "Brexit bonuses" perhaps?
Taking Back Control by putting us at the mercy of others we formally regarded as friends and have turned into adversaries?
Brilliant strategy.........Not.
I imagine that there will be a need to stop and search lorry and container cargoes to ensure compliance with EU laws, and for that you need a border.
That's not sense, quite the opposite. As Woosh had detailed, we have to implement border controls if we wish to continue trading.
Like too many Brexiters Frank Field is losing sight of reality. Eventually they'll all have to wake up and realise that there can be no sovereignty for a trading nation in the modern world.
.
I would imagine that stopping and searching every lorry and container to ensure compliance to be a waste of resource from both sides, i imagine there will be prior compliance and passporting of goods for trusted businesses, and random checks, not necessarily done at the border, or at least I would rather they did that than having a border, I have no idea to what sort of level that would mean,
But it would be much easier for both sides if it continued as it is currently, as passporting will clearly cost more and add hassle, even if it works well, it won’t be better than it is now, it would be much worse.
I didn’t think we lost sovereignty whilst in the EU, so I don’t understand what you mean about there being no sovereignty, that doesn’t make sense.
new agreed rules are added each year as negotiations continue since 1994.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/rulesneg_e/rulesneg_e.htm
there are no specific WTO rules regarding a physical border in NI other than the obligation on WTO members to control regulatory compliance, collect duty and taxes. How the members do that is left to local administration.
From the EU perspective, "all UK goods entering the EU would be subject to a default range of tariffs ... It has to be assumed that broadly similar tariffs would apply to EU goods entering the UK".
The hard brexiters are correct in saying that there could be a technological solution to this. What they are hoping for is a free for all Singapore style. In reality, even Singapore needs a physical border with Malaysia and without it, we'll be exposed not only to smuggling of goods but also to people and fake goods.
As I said the best scenario is a good deal, it makes it easy for both sides, both sides being Ireland and Northern Ireland, because it is Ireland on both sides that will suffer the most, if a border is introduced, and I personally don’t agree with the term hard or soft Brexit, we should either stay in fully by terminating article 50, or leave completely, I don’t see the wish washy middle way as sustainable for the UK, it would just be a ticking time bomb.
that is also the EU's view all along.
the suspicion is TM is in fact a remainer, her red lines are there to stall brexit until the young generations displace the old ones.
I suspect her problem is simpler than that: she cannot afford to cancel brexit nor adopt a Norway brexit because she relies on UKIP voters to stop JC.
As far as I am concerned, the only sensible brexit is a soft brexit.
Maybe there is some truth in that, I don’t know,
The only sensible option I see is no Brexit, the next best thing to none, being something inbetween soft and hard, which is what I expect it to become, and my reasons for that is that it’s the only option that both sides could claim some form of victory,
No Brexit means that the government has decided that the costs and the difficulties of leaving outweigh the benefits,
Soft Brexit means that all we have only given up our steering capabilities and deal making capabilities in the EU, which may work for a while, but at what political cost?
Agreed it doesn't make sense, I was speaking of the Brexiter's view of sovereignty where they think we can have total control of everything, impossible in this global world for a trading nation.
We are all subject to WTO rules and UN standards, in the EU we have to abide by their trading agreements with others, their specified standards and ECJ judgements.
So every time a nation makes an agreement with another one or group, some sovereignty is lost on both sides in exchange for perceived benefits. I don't see that as a problem.
.
I still don’t get you,
I can understand that if another body or country can implement laws on your country, that you have to accept, then you have lost some sovereignty, the UK has never been in that position, the UK parliament could at any time refuse,
Trade agreements have nothing to do with sovereignty, in my opinion.
Once again, I was speaking of the Brexiter view of total sovereignty which appears to include trade agreements, not my view at all.
However, the UK parliament cannot just refuse to accept what it has signed up to without serious consequences, and that's not just trade agreements. There's UN and EU rules, the ECJ and the International Court of Justice, plus international projects and committments. They all limit our freedoms.
.
it's the least cost version of all the brexit versions.
Reversing brexit: the conservatives cannot do that, they would split if they try.
JC cannot do that, Labour will lose a lot of seats, even in London.
Only a coalition government can do that, by blaming the other partner or partners forcing them to do that. The probability of LibDems winning more than a couple of seats at the next GE is very small, so such a coalition is very unlikely.
Would a soft brexit work for a generation or more?
Quite possibly. If the EU somehow manages to reform FOM and prosper (ie bringing the income level of all the new members to EU average of around 1,200 Euros a month take home pay per person), then it's easy to rejoin the EU from a soft brexit. If not, then soft brexit is still the best solution.