Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

roosterman71

Roaming charges for UK holidaymakers are making a return
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-o2-data-roaming-charges-b1871484.html

Don't see much issue here. Would be hard to hit 25GB if you weren't glued to videos while on holidays

View

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

I don’t see it, Why would we politically want to veto and help Brexiteers?

Sanctions on UK help our businesses especially if pressure is applied at Calais by French who would love to do so for own reasons, and more importantly how can UK retaliate?

Implementing the protocols is the easiest path for them otherwise they really get themselves into a bind if they try to undo Good Friday and not just with EU

For all member states - ie including us - to implement EU sanctions against the U.K., would require us to apply those on our border with NI. That would require physical infrastructure on the border, which is not there.

As the erection of that infrastructure is unthinkable here, we would veto any measure (ie sanctions) that would require it. Brexiters are counting on that, therefore they have no reason to operate the protocol. Until we PROVE to them, their thinking is wrong, they have no reason to change tack.

RobMc59

Strazdas wrote: »

It's a bit of an odd thing to reference in a song about patriotism. Lots of countries reference their fight for independence in their national anthems (Ireland, USA etc) but few if any mention past wars for the sake of mentioning them.

I suppose for the Brexit brigade, past wars with a variety of enemies are their equivalent of a 'fight for independence' and a part of the national identity.

The US anthem refers to the 1814 battle of baltimore which was not the war of independence.It was the 1812 war which the US ultimately lost as they were unable to seize Canada.

View

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

That’s a fairly elaborate straw man imho that makes the Eu to be some distant power that we are subservient to and ignores the recent history of us using Eu to run circles around the British “negotiators”

I’m sure pressure can be applied in all sorts of creative ways on uk to remind them of the best oven ready deal ever without actually creating more internal problems

A couple of weeks of more checks in Calais like happened in December and Boris be putting the dup turkey in oven himself

In last 5 years we and our friends in Eu (we can actually say that with a straight face unlike Boris) got UK to negotiating table and to sign on dotted line, now all that’s left is to keep them in line, Tories will try to throw a tantrum but there is no alternative that works out better for them than the deal they agreed. It’s like getting a dog on a lead once the choke is on just need to pull to control the beast.

It isn’t a straw man, nor is the EU any sort of “distant power”. Nor is it credible to claim that we have used the EU to run rings around Brexiters, when the NI protocol just isn’t being operated by them and they are getting away with it scot-free. Rather it’s non-operation is evidence to the contrary.

For the EU to apply retaliatory sanctions and for them to work, they have to be agreed and applied in full on all borders by all member states - including by us on all our borders.

The idea that sanctions could be applied at Calais, but not by us, just won’t work. It would probably violate WTO rules for a start (and it would certainly be contrary to the entire idea of the EU as a single customs union).

In addition, should that happen, all the U.K. need do is apply counter-retaliatory sanctions and then you’d have a massive political storm in the EU. Exporters in other EU countries will scream their heads off if they end up on the receiving end of sanctions over something (NI) none of them care about, particularly if we here in Ireland are simultaneously refusing to implement the (initial) set of retaliatory sanctions on our border with the U.K/NI.

You can’t expect the team to bust a gut to take one for you, while you act as though you aren’t on the team in the first place.

Capt'n Midnight

roosterman71 wrote: »

Roaming charges for UK holidaymakers are making a return
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-o2-data-roaming-charges-b1871484.html

Don't see much issue here. Would be hard to hit 25GB if you weren't glued to videos while on holidays

Think of it as the thin edge of the wedge. Not too many people will be going on abroad this year. Next year it may be 15GB ?

It's a very quick rollback from O2 who are merging with Virgin. It will be interesting to see which of the other larger operators start down this road.

Customers of O2 have been told they will be billed £3.50 for every gigabyte (GB) of data used above a new limit of 25GB, from August.

Capt'n Midnight

How much are HM Customs and Revenue loosing by not imposing full controls and tariffs on imports from the EU ? And what will the costs and delays be when they do ?

And how long before that chicken comes back to roost.

Inflation fears grow as UK factory prices surge. Full tariffs and controls will add to this.

BlitzKrieg

the roaming charges was a shoe waiting to drop for a long time. At least in my household. Lost track of the amount of times it was brought up that the charges were only removed becuase of EU law but it was sold in the UK as some weird benevolent gift from the service providers with almost no mention that it was required by EU law. Which is a great case study of how the EU was seen in the UK, anything good it did was buried under credit being handed out left right and centre to national bodies and businesses.

My whatsapp has been going off since that story broke with "saw this coming" comments

CelticRambler

View wrote: »

For the EU to apply retaliatory sanctions and for them to work, they have to be agreed and applied in full on all borders by all member states - including by us on all our borders.

Sanctions aren't applied at the borders. They're applied when a quote is provided for an order. If the EU decided to put a punitive 75% tariff on Scotch whisky, that doesn't mean that some border agent asks the lorry driver for a cash payment for every box. It means that SuperValu has to pay the extra 75% on their invoice. And if Customs&Excise get a tip-off that an off-license somewhere in Cork is selling whisky smuggled in from the North, they'll be knocking on the door with a fistful of fines to cripple the chancer who thought he'd give the Brits a dig-out.

Podge_irl

View wrote: »

In addition, should that happen, all the U.K. need do is apply counter-retaliatory sanctions and then you’d have a massive political storm in the EU. Exporters in other EU countries will scream their heads off if they end up on the receiving end of sanctions over something (NI) none of them care about, particularly if we here in Ireland are simultaneously refusing to implement the (initial) set of retaliatory sanctions on our border with the U.K/NI.

This is where I think you are massively misjudging things. The rest of the EU very much do care. The UK was banking on them not caring and has woefully misjudged this.

Ireland will commit to installing infrastructure on the border if needs be, but everyone will understand that it will take a lot of time - the channel crossings will basically shut overnight.

Peregrinus

CelticRambler wrote: »

Sanctions aren't applied at the borders. They're applied when a quote is provided for an order. If the EU decided to put a punitive 75% tariff on Scotch whisky, that doesn't mean that some border agent asks the lorry driver for a cash payment for every box. It means that SuperValu has to pay the extra 75% on their invoice. And if Customs&Excise get a tip-off that an off-license somewhere in Cork is selling whisky smuggled in from the North, they'll be knocking on the door with a fistful of fines to cripple the chancer who thought he'd give the Brits a dig-out.

This. If it comes to punitive measures, the EU is very unlikely to pick the kind of punitive measures that require the construction of infrastructure — not least because the aim is that the punitive measures will be temporary; they whole idea is that they put manners on the UK, so that the sanctions can be dropped.

For a brief few hours back in - was it March? - the EU intended to restrict the export of Covid vacccines to the UK,, including NI. There was uproar and the proposal was - rightly - dropped, but even its bitterest critics didn't think, and didn't pretend to think, that this would be enforced by physical checks at the border.

The imposition of tariffs, etc, on the UK would certainly require border controls - as in, it would require checks and controls to be applied to cross-border trade. But there would be a definite intention of not choosing sanctions that would require the construction of border checkpoints, inspection of traffic at the border, etc, etc. The aim is not to inconvience people who live in frontier regions or have to travel across frontiers, but to apply pressure to the UK government.

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

For all member states - ie including us - to implement EU sanctions against the U.K., would require us to apply those on our border with NI. That would require physical infrastructure on the border, which is not there.

No, the EU can apply a strict border at Calais while we talk about NI's special circumstances.

The UK will cave long before we have to enforce even a virtual border.

Christy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, the EU can apply a strict border at Calais while we talk about NI's special circumstances.

The UK will cave long before we have to enforce even a virtual border.

Indeed. An open border at NI would be tough to exploit, especially on a short time scale since a lot of goods would need to be shipped there and then through the border and then shipped from Ireland to their actual destination. It would give some boost to NI and the Republic if they did it but I suspect the costs will be too much to make UK rely on it for long.

Peregrinus

Bear in mind that solidarity works both ways. IRL can't expect to do sod all and thrive on smuggling while FRA, NL and others bear the expense and aggravation of border measures to put pressure on the UK to abide by the terms of the NIP. The whole rationale for the NIP is that the UK needs to implement it so that there won't have to be a hard border in Ireland. If the UK refuses to implement the NIP and we argue that there still doeshn't have to be a hard border in Ireland, then why was the NIP needed in the first place? And why should FRA, NL, etc bear the burden of enforcing the NIP if, it turns out, it doesn't have to be in place to avoid a hardening of the border?

If it all kicks off, and sanctions, tariffs, etc are applied to the UK, these will have a significant adverse effect on IRL. If nothing else, we'll have to apply the tariffs, etc to imports from GB - what happens in Calais and Rotterdam will also happen in Dublin and Waterford. And there will have to be measures to make it at least difficult to avoid tariffs, etc by routing GB-IRL trade via NI. That won't, for the reasons I pointed out earlier, involve the erection of border infrastructure, but it will at a minimum involve heavy supervision of businesses engaged in cross-border trade, a lot of bureaucracy and compliance burden, etc. Plus actual real costs in terms of tariffs for Irish businesses obtaining inputs, supplies or stock from the UK. And in a trade war context the UK will almost certainly be applying counter-measures affecting Irish trade into the UK.

The bottom line here is that this whole thing is being done at Ireland's behest, and if shît gets real we will be very much expected to pull our weight. This won't involve infrastructure at the land border, but it will definitely involve measures that will be painful for us.

Leroy42

I think View is making the point, and certainly it something I am inclined to agree with, that Ireland is not prepared to carry the burden. That the UK are using that unwillingness to face the reality that will give the UK their out.

It is clearly in Irelands interests to deescalate any issue. Ireland will certainly be pushing for yet another extension, for more appeasement.

The other countries, not so directly affected, are iikey to take the view that Peregrunis has expressed above. Either there is a need for it or there isn't. If the next three months, after the already 6 months, don't matter, then why the 3 months after that. Or the 3 years after that?

So far the UK has been wrong on their bet that they can create a wedge, but with little to lose there really is no downside for them pushing as hard as they can to try to create one. And Ireland is the weak link.

Johnson and Co don't actually care about sausages in NI. It is problem with a pretty straight forward solution. Certainly much easier to solve than the myriad other issues that Brexit has raised. But it is an issue they believe that can create a wedge between Ireland and the rest of the EU.

It is ironic given that so many have complained that the UK wants their cake and eat it, that it is Ireland that actually wants that very thing. But the rubber is hitting the road and Ireland needs to make a decision. Either we go with the EU, and the associated impact that it will have, or we prevaricate and look to undermine the EU for our own short term reasons.

I recall reading that Ireland is pushing for an acceptance of the extension that the UK have requested. I have no issue with an extension per se, but I would wager that Ireland are simply looking to avoid any negative impact rather than looking to resolve the issues.

Now, it is conceivable that behind the scenes the Uk are actually working on implementation and that the request is nothing more than a way to get over the possible touch paper of 12 July. And that once that is over with the U are confident that the rest of the necessary measures, be that checks or signin up to EU rules, can be slowly introduced.

fly_agaric

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think View is making the point, and certainly it something I am inclined to agree with, that Ireland is not prepared to carry the burden. That the UK are using that unwillingness to face the reality that will give the UK their out.

It is clearly in Irelands interests to deescalate any issue. Ireland will certainly be pushing for yet another extension, for more appeasement.

The other countries, not so directly affected, are iikey to take the view that Peregrunis has expressed above. Either there is a need for it or there isn't. If the next three months, after the already 6 months, don't matter, then why the 3 months after that. Or the 3 years after that?

So far the UK has been wrong on their bet that they can create a wedge, but with little to lose there really is no downside for them pushing as hard as they can to try to create one. And Ireland is the weak link.

Johnson and Co don't actually care about sausages in NI. It is problem with a pretty straight forward solution. Certainly much easier to solve than the myriad other issues that Brexit has raised. But it is an issue they believe that can create a wedge between Ireland and the rest of the EU.

Yes. If the UK just won't implement NI protocol there will come a point where concessions and trying to be conciliatory has to end and the EU bringing pressure to bear to force them to do it begins.

Micheál Martin/FF do not appear to get that (IMO) in the way FG seem(ed) to and I think they are going to be in for a bit of a shock because I doubt a more reasonable attitude is suddenly going to break out in the UK government.

They'll take this as a win and start the whole silly dance again (maybe next time extended "grace periods" will expire or sooner than that if Johnson needs another row with the EU to drum up the base).

CelticRambler

Christy42 wrote: »

It would give some boost to NI and the Republic if they did it but I suspect the costs will be too much to make UK rely on it for long.

It's shouldn't need to be pointed out, but as this crops up quite regularly, perhaps it does: there is no scheming "UK" micromanaging all of the trade in and out of Great Britain. These movements are done on a company-to-company level, completely independently of what the politicians in Westminster, Belfast, Dublin or Brussels are saying and doing.

So if the politicians decide to impose tariffs or a requirement for additional declarations or certifications or whatever, it's the exporting companies and the importing customers that need to comply with the rules and pay the cost.

For each and every one of them, yes, there'll always be the option of exploiting a hole in the GB-NI-RoI-EU border, but the minute they use it, they step outside the law and risk losing some or all of their business. The vast majority of legitimate traders just won't do that. If they can't live with the new arrangements, Europeans will find alternative suppliers, and British enterprises will restructure, go to the wall, or stiff-upper-lip it and hope the Americans come to their rescue like they did in WW2.

Sam Russell

The EU should insist the EU citizens in the UK should have the deadline extended for applying for resident status as a quid pro quo for the extension to the grace periods.

They should also insist that infrastructure requirements for the NI Protocol be completed by 1st October 2021, or inspections be moved to GB ports of departure.

Clear and concise requirements, followed by clear sanctions that will hurt.

KildareP

On roaming - they are not "reintroducing roaming charges", they are placing a Fair Use limit on how much data of your UK domestic allowance you can use before you are charged overage where previously you had unfettered access to your allowance. You can still use up to 25GB in the EU without additional cost but if you go over you are charged £3.50/GB.
With the exception of Vodafone, all of the Irish operators here already have such a scheme in place and all but the most expensive plans have a lot less than 25GB of your data available to use in the EU before you are charged overage of €5.54/GB (including VAT).

On sanctions - the EU need only make it an offence to carry or assist in the carriage of goods that do not conform to the standards of the EU market into NI, in much the same way as Google could no longer supply Huawei with the Google Play platform because of Trump's decision to apply sanctions against China.

Since the only way for goods to get into NI from GB is by a combination of road and air or sea, and no ferry, air freight or logistics company is going to risk locking themselves out of the more lucrative EU market by being caught carrying non-compliant goods into NI, those companies will require you to prove compliance before they'll accept carriage of your products. No compliance paperwork, no carriage. In effect, the border happens at the departure terminal located in the UK and non-compliant product doesn't get to leave the UK in the first place.

Leroy42

KildareP wrote: »

On roaming - they are not "reintroducing roaming charges", they are placing a Fair Use limit on how much data of your UK domestic allowance you can use before you are charged overage where previously you had unfettered access to your allowance. You can still use up to 25GB in the EU without additional cost but if you go over you are charged £3.50/GB.
With the exception of Vodafone, all of the Irish operators here already have such a scheme in place and all but the most expensive plans have a lot less than 25GB of your data available to use in the EU before you are charged overage of €5.54/GB (including VAT).

This issue is not the limit, the issue is that this move was forecasted as being possible due to leaving the EU and leavers ignored it.

This is simply the thin edge of the wedge. Tele companies did not reduce roaming charges out of some desire for fairness or a sense of being European. They got rid of them because the EU made it the law.

Not that the UK have left, the Tele companies are no longer legally bound to that. So they can reintroduce charges. O2 are the 1st to move, others will likely follow and depending on how it goes they may look to reduce the allowance, or increase to cost to obtain said allowance.

It may never get to a point where UK citizens pay roaming charges, but issue is that they went from a situation where they couldn't be (within certain limits) to a position that they are now open to whatever the Tele companies want.

Taking back control!

CelticRambler

KildareP wrote: »

On sanctions - the EU need only make it an offence to carry or assist in the carriage of goods that do not conform to the standards of the EU market into NI
...
In effect, the border happens at the departure terminal located in the UK and non-compliant product doesn't get to leave the UK in the first place.

This is exactly how the UK tried to deal with illegal migration - fining lorry drivers for the migrants that hid in their trailers; fining Eurotunnel for the migrants that broke through the perimeter fence and got into the Tunnel; fining airlines for the migrants that boarded their planes. Crude, but effective.

McGiver

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is clearly in Irelands interests to deescalate any issue. Ireland will certainly be pushing for yet another extension, for more appeasement.

Deescalation is one thing, appeasement another.

Appeasement doesn't work with fascists, authoritarians and Trumpists. They only get emboldened by that.

Martin could be playing a long game expecting that the Johnsonist populist regime will disappear in 2024, but I think this is unlikely and it's a wrong/dangerous bet.

Martin is weak/naive in foreing policy & diplomacy in my opinion and I hope he won't be remembered as an Irish Brexit version of Chamberlain...

Peregrinus

KildareP wrote: »

On sanctions - the EU need only make it an offence to carry or assist in the carriage of goods that do not conform to the standards of the EU market into NI, in much the same way as Google could no longer supply Huawei with the Google Play platform because of Trump's decision to apply sanctions against China.

Since the only way for goods to get into NI from GB is by a combination of road and air or sea, and no ferry, air freight or logistics company is going to risk locking themselves out of the more lucrative EU market by being caught carrying non-compliant goods into NI, those companies will require you to prove compliance before they'll accept carriage of your products. No compliance paperwork, no carriage. In effect, the border happens at the departure terminal located in the UK and non-compliant product doesn't get to leave the UK in the first place.

How is the EU going to "catch" ferry operators carrying non-compliant goods between, say,Stranraer and Larne, if the NIP is not being operated? The EU is unable to inspect freight movements within the UK, and the UK authorities are hardly going to do the enforcement on behalf of the EU.

Plus, neither GB nor NI are in the EU. The EU can no more pass a law regulating trade between GB and NI than the UK can pass a law regulating trade between France and Spain. All they can do is hold the UK to what it has committed to in the WA+NIP. And the NIP does not contain any general ban on the carriage of non-compliant goods into NI, nor confer any jurisdiction on the EU to impose penalties on businesses or individuals. The only party owing any obligations to the EU under the NIP is the UK government.

Peregrinus

McGiver wrote: »

Deescalation is one thing, appeasement another.

Appeasement doesn't work with fascists, authoritarians and Trumpists. They only get emboldened by that.

Martin could be playing a long game expecting that the Johnsonist populist regime will disappear in 2024, but I think this is unlikely and it's a wrong/dangerous bet.

Martin is weak/naive in foreing policy & diplomacy in my opinion and I hope he won't be remembered as an Irish Brexit version of Chamberlain...

Gotta point out that firmness couples with dedramatisation and patience has consistently worked here. The UK blusters and bloviates until the deadline is upon them, and then they cave. As now, for instance.

Ireland's national interest lies not just in avoiding a hard border with NI, but also in having minimal impositions on trade with GB. And, of course, the freer UK:EU trade is in general, the easier it is to avoid a hard NI:IRL border. For that reason our national interest will always favour the softest deal that the UK will accept, and that is always the perspective that we will bring to the table.

That's absolutely not a problem, so far as the EU is concerned. Countries always bring national perspectives to the Council of Ministers; that's the whole point of the Council of Ministers. They also have to bring a commitment to consensus-building and collective decision making - "we'll articulate our interests here and we will expect them to be listened to and taken into account. And in turn we will listen to and take account of the diverse interests of other members states. And we will all work to try to build a consensus - a decision which may not be the favour outcome of some or even most member states, but which they can all support because their various interests have been taken into account in framing the decision".

This process is foreign to UK politics, where they loathe consensus building and take the view that whoever holds a majority at any time is entitled to grind his enemies beneath his chariot-wheels until he hears the lamentations of their women. This approach has not served them well either in terms of framing a Brexit policy that enjoys popular assent domestically, or in understanding the negotiation process they have been engaged in with the EU for the past five years. But there we are.

An Irish Taoiseach leaning in favour of accommodating the UK as far as possible is not doing anything that will either surprise or upset his EU counterparties. What matters is that he shouldn't be doing this to oppose EU policy, but to feed into the EU policy process.

steddyeddy

Sam Russell wrote: »

The EU should insist the EU citizens in the UK should have the deadline extended for applying for resident status as a quid pro quo for the extension to the grace periods.

They should also insist that infrastructure requirements for the NI Protocol be completed by 1st October 2021, or inspections be moved to GB ports of departure.

Clear and concise requirements, followed by clear sanctions that will hurt.

I agree but the UK seem to have no problem with sanctions due to the fact that they have sanctioned themselves through Brexit.

peter kern

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think View is making the point, and certainly it something I am inclined to agree with, that Ireland is not prepared to carry the burden. That the UK are using that unwillingness to face the reality that will give the UK their out.

It is clearly in Irelands interests to deescalate any issue. Ireland will certainly be pushing for yet another extension, for more appeasement.

The other countries, not so directly affected, are iikey to take the view that Peregrunis has expressed above. Either there is a need for it or there isn't. If the next three months, after the already 6 months, don't matter, then why the 3 months after that. Or the 3 years after that?

So far the UK has been wrong on their bet that they can create a wedge, but with little to lose there really is no downside for them pushing as hard as they can to try to create one. And Ireland is the weak link.

Johnson and Co don't actually care about sausages in NI. It is problem with a pretty straight forward solution. Certainly much easier to solve than the myriad other issues that Brexit has raised. But it is an issue they believe that can create a wedge between Ireland and the rest of the EU.

It is ironic given that so many have complained that the UK wants their cake and eat it, that it is Ireland that actually wants that very thing. But the rubber is hitting the road and Ireland needs to make a decision. Either we go with the EU, and the associated impact that it will have, or we prevaricate and look to undermine the EU for our own short term reasons.

I recall reading that Ireland is pushing for an acceptance of the extension that the UK have requested. I have no issue with an extension per se, but I would wager that Ireland are simply looking to avoid any negative impact rather than looking to resolve the issues.

Now, it is conceivable that behind the scenes the Uk are actually working on implementation and that the request is nothing more than a way to get over the possible touch paper of 12 July. And that once that is over with the U are confident that the rest of the necessary measures, be that checks or signin up to EU rules, can be slowly introduced.

According to the Eu commissioner Seflovic they did ask the uk if they need more time than 6 month transition time , and the uk said .no it's enough time , so there seems to be no big stress by the Eu to extend, as long as it's being done in agreement and not unilateral.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the UK refuses to implement the NIP and we argue that there still doeshn't have to be a hard border in Ireland, then why was the NIP needed in the first place? And why should FRA, NL, etc bear the burden of enforcing the NIP if, it turns out, it doesn't have to be in place to avoid a hardening of the border?

The UK has to implement it, that's what the sanctions are for, to make them do it.

It does not make sense for the EU to force the UK to have no border in Ireland by imposing a border in Ireland.

KildareP

Leroy42 wrote: »

This issue is not the limit, the issue is that this move was forecasted as being possible due to leaving the EU and leavers ignored it.

This is simply the thin edge of the wedge. Tele companies did not reduce roaming charges out of some desire for fairness or a sense of being European. They got rid of them because the EU made it the law.

Not that the UK have left, the Tele companies are no longer legally bound to that. So they can reintroduce charges. O2 are the 1st to move, others will likely follow and depending on how it goes they may look to reduce the allowance, or increase to cost to obtain said allowance.

It may never get to a point where UK citizens pay roaming charges, but issue is that they went from a situation where they couldn't be (within certain limits) to a position that they are now open to whatever the Tele companies want.

Taking back control!

My point was more that the story is being overblown as a massive Brexit blow, in much the same vein as every slightly positive thing to happen in the UK is seized by Brexiters as a massive Brexit "win".

O2's arrangements are still better than what they are obliged to offer as a minimum under the directive and in many cases better than what Eir and Three offer on most of their plans. Whether that changes remains to be seen.

Peregrinus wrote:

How is the EU going to "catch" ferry operators carrying non-compliant goods between, say,Stranraer and Larne, if the NIP is not being operated? The EU is unable to inspect freight movements within the UK, and the UK authorities are hardly going to do the enforcement on behalf of the EU.

Plus, neither GB nor NI are in the EU. The EU can no more pass a law regulating trade between GB and NI than the UK can pass a law regulating trade between France and Spain. All they can do is hold the UK to what it has committed to in the WA+NIP. And the NIP does not contain any general ban on the carriage of non-compliant goods into NI, nor confer any jurisdiction on the EU to impose penalties on businesses or individuals. The only party owing any obligations to the EU under the NIP is the UK government.

This sort of scenario will be in the case of an all out trade war.

If the UK refuse to implement the NIP, the EU will escalate per the NIP.
If the escalations don't work and/or the UK starts pumping serious volumes of product through ROI, then you start the sanctions.

You're not going to catch anything near 100% at first with sanctions but you make it so that whatever small amount you do catch, the consequences are so punitive for all involved it's not worth the risk. Google could have supplied Huawei with the Google Play platform in China, despite being in contravention of Trump's directive, but the consequences for Google doing so wouldn't have been worth it overall.

Thus, if product is intercepted at one of the Irish ports that is found to be non-compliant, how did it end up on your truck? Why did it end up on your truck? How did it get onto the island? Follow the chain and you apply punitive fines to anyone along the way who was involved.

So unless you can prove your consignment is EU compliant, you don't gain entry into Dublin port.

Once a few hauliers get hit this way, you'll quickly find that backfeeds up the line and no haulier wants to touch a consignment within ROI until they're absolutely sure where it came from and that it is compliant for the EU market. You can't simply dump the container or consignment somewhere if it's stopped but until you can get it off your truck, your truck is now losing you significant amounts of money.

Once no haulier is willing to take charge of the consignment once it enters ROI territory without knowing that it's compliant, then no NI-based haulier is going to want to take it off the ferry at the dock unless they're absolutely sure it's either going to an NI destination or that it's not going to risk being stopped in the ROI, because they'll be stuck with it and their truck will be taken out of action with a load they can't offload.

Once no haulier is willing to bring it off the boat in NI if it's going outside NI and they can't be sure it's compliant, then no ferry operator is going to want to accept the consignment at the UK side without being absolutely sure that it's either destined for NI or that it's compliant for the EU market. They don't want to be stuck with a container they can't offload or a trailer no-one will drive off.

Once the hauliers on the GB side know that unless they can prove where their consignment is headed and that it's compliant for that intended destination, then it's not going to get on the ferry, no haulier is going to want to accept a consignment they can't be sure is compliant for it's ultimate destination if they risk being stuck with a load they can't offload.

roosterman71

EE next up with roaming charges

Those joining or upgrading from 7 July 2021 will be charged £2 a day to use their allowances in 47 European destinations from January 2022.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57595913

Nate--IRL--

KildareP wrote: »

My point was more that the story is being overblown as a massive Brexit blow, in much the same vein as every slightly positive thing to happen in the UK is seized by Brexiters as a massive Brexit "win".

O2's arrangements are still better than what they are obliged to offer as a minimum under the directive and in many cases better than what Eir and Three offer on most of their plans. Whether that changes remains to be seen.

EDIT:- Sniped

Yeah but....

https://twitter.com/ruskin147/status/1408027087085182979?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1408027087085182979%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Foverclockers.co.uk%2Fforums%2Fthreads%2Fthe-post-brexit-thread.18914204%2Fpage-57

Nate

ancapailldorcha

roosterman71 wrote: »

EE next up with roaming charges


https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57595913

I'm with EE. That's not too bad but it's the sort of trivial nonsense that's more likely to make people take note than stories of job losses.