briany wrote: » Just to help me get this straight - May's plan B is to take her current plan and open it to amendments from the HoC?
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Traceability is a regulatory matter and can be enforced just the same as any other regulation. What you describe in terms of no means of establishing the origins is something that has already arisen in the context of the EU:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_horse_meat_scandal In 2013 French abatoirs were selling horse meat falsely declared as beef. That happened within the EU. In relation to products that get processed and are re-exported, that too is something that happens in Europe. A recent example is that bicycle parts were being imported into Europe, assembled and sold as European bikes. So the EU passed regulations in relation to these:http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/march/tradoc_156658.exemptions.en.L79-2018.pdf If there was a problem with a perception of poor food being imported from the UK into Ireland, that too could be resolved by regulation.
prawnsambo wrote: » In the case of a hard brexit, that is unavoidable unfortunately. Both the UK and the EU would require it, no matter the posturing coming from certain sections of the UK establishment. No border checks means industrial scale smuggling.
J Mysterio wrote: » I've been very impressed with her throughout this whole debacle, particularly in the committee's. I like Hilary Benn too for the same reason. While Starmer seems a decent fellow, his closeness to Corbyn has almost tainted him.
Folkstonian wrote: » Just because both of you contribute very frequently to these threads (you must have posted hundreds of times?) often submitting apparently learned analyses of contemporary British politics and society - I simply assumed that given your clear enthusiasm for Brexit politics, you’d know Yvette Cooper was a member of the Labour Party And to satisfy you, yes a tiny hint of British exceptionalism as well.
prawnsambo wrote: » It's not that simple. A lot of chicken is exported from NI (and Ireland) to the UK and turned into ready meals and re-imported. There would be no way to know the source of the chicken or other meat products, once they are processed. And that's just at that basic level. There would be thousands of products imported here from the UK into multiples like Tesco and M&S and we would have no control over their content or any means of establishing it. So ostensibly our product gets processed, comes back and is re-exported and we've no tracability? Death of our food industry right there.
prawnsambo wrote: » I'm slightly flummoxed by your surprise. This is Ireland. We have our own politicians. That we even pay enough attention to british politics to know the names of some of your politicians should be the surprise. Or is this british exceptionalism again?
Mr.Wemmick wrote: » Yes, and the next leader of the Labour party I think. Either her or K. Starmer would be good.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » We wouldn't have to be party to any UK trade deals, and we would not have to accept US goods for sale in Ireland. We are talking about where you physically check the goods. And we have made it a political priority that those checks do not take place anywhere near Northern Ireland.
Scoondal wrote: » Yes, in such a case EU would not engage with them. But UK can do it, right ? Is this why Mrs. May seems to be doing nothing at the moment ? UK can exit A50 and a couple of days later trigger A50 again. They get another 2 years as a member of EU. It is possible.
johnnyskeleton wrote: Nope. Ireland retains its own standards on food and other goods. The open border means that those goods will not be checked when passing the border; it doesn't mean that they can be legally sold in Ireland. At the moment, there are certain pharmaceutical goods that can be sold in Ireland but not in the UK and vice versa. We have an open border, but it doesn't mean that all the same goods are sold in both countries.
First Up wrote: » I don't think you understand how a single market works. The whole point is to eliminate the need for checks of any sort. And you cannot have different rules for Ireland and the rest of the SM. That undermines the whole point of a common external tariff. If we break from the CET we automatically cease to be party to the EU's trade arrangements with third countries.
Folkstonian wrote: » Good grief. Of course Yvette Cooper is labour. She’s a former minister and party leadership candidate
Enzokk wrote: » Surely if we decide to keep the border open with the UK instead of the EU it means we are at the mercy of UK trade deals? The UK will in that scenario quickly have a trade deal with the US and their hormone beef and chlorinated chicken which will have an open border to us and a barrier to the EU. Would we have a say in the trade deal the UK strikes? Because they will determine what goods are freely allowed into our country in that case.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Well, not quite. They can unilaterally revoke Article 50, it's true. However, the EU is unlikely to improve the Withdrawal Agreement it is currently offering simply because Theresa May has decided to add to the silly games the Conservative party has been gambling on with the country's future. They're happy to accommodate a reversal of Brexit and are well experienced in dealing with "ratification difficulties" but I'd say they'll just get told "Take it or leave it". Then of course, there are the Brexiteers. All an extension would do is embolden them.
johnnyskeleton wrote: Yes, goods would be delayed. However, they will be delayed anyway in the event of a no deal brexit. We would not have to pay taxes on our own goods exported to the EU and we would not have to match taxes for UK imports. You tell if they come from the UK by requiring a customs declaration and if someone fraudulently fails to do so and is caught, they face criminal sanctions and the loss of their hauliage licence.
johnnyskeleton wrote: Again, there is a risk that someone might illegally bring such goods into Ireland and try to sell them. That risk still exists with a hard border in the North. It is impossible to police that entire border. The way you stop those goods being sold is that you enforce the regulations in Ireland.
johnnyskeleton wrote: In simple terms, if the UK has chlorinated chicken and Ireland doesn't allow it to be sold, the FSA can carry out checks of supermarkets and such and if they find chlorinated chicken they can fine the supermarket. Someone who goes to the effort of illegally importing chlorinated chicken and repackaging it in Ireland is in no better or worse position than someone in Ireland who tries to produce it in violation of food safety standards.
johnnyskeleton wrote: No deal will mean a hard border in Northern Ireland. This issue transcends economics and goes to the heart of the peace process. The whole reason the Irish government is insistent on the backstop is that the possibility of a hard border is our no.1 concern, far beyond the risk to the economy (which the EU has already said they will provide grant aid for in the event of loss).
Christy42 wrote: » Why would goods go through Ireland? The rest of the UK is closer to the EU so we would not be a nexus.
By domestic market I think they mean our own market. The goods we buy on the shelf would need standards set by the UK and only the UK. We get a say in EU standards, you are removing that ability. We have alternate routes to the UK if tariffs prove an issue going through the UK but this would entirely remove the option. We would just be stuck with tariffs set by the UK without our input.
This has so few benefits and the downsides would be catastrophic for the nation. That is why it is off the table. We trade more with the EU than the UK. The UK is also likely headed for a recession in a few months time (with the above solution) due to a largely hard Brexit and so will be less valuable as a market.
This is not realpolitik so much as it is accepting English rule again.
Scoondal wrote: » From a quick Google search, it seems that UK can revoke Article 50 on 28 March. And they can then trigger a new Article 50, giving them 2 more years to negociate a new EU withdrawal deal. Someone please tell me I'm wrong...
prawnsambo wrote: » I thought Yvette Cooper was Labour. Open to correction though.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Someone on the radio was speaking(on the No Deal amendment) about the difficulty of backbencher motions or amendments (I think the proposer Yvette Cooper is a backbench Tory)making it to a vote or through. Anyone know the finer detail of how it works?
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Nope. Ireland retains its own standards on food and other goods. The open border means that those goods will not be checked when passing the border; it doesn't mean that they can be legally sold in Ireland. At the moment, there are certain pharmaceutical goods that can be sold in Ireland but not in the UK and vice versa. We have an open border, but it doesn't mean that all the same goods are sold in both countries. Again, there is a risk that someone might illegally bring such goods into Ireland and try to sell them. That risk still exists with a hard border in the North. It is impossible to police that entire border. The way you stop those goods being sold is that you enforce the regulations in Ireland. In simple terms, if the UK has chlorinated chicken and Ireland doesn't allow it to be sold, the FSA can carry out checks of supermarkets and such and if they find chlorinated chicken they can fine the supermarket. Someone who goes to the effort of illegally importing chlorinated chicken and repackaging it in Ireland is in no better or worse position than someone in Ireland who tries to produce it in violation of food safety standards.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Yes, goods would be delayed. However, they will be delayed anyway in the event of a no deal brexit. We would not have to pay taxes on our own goods exported to the EU and we would not have to match taxes for UK imports. You tell if they come from the UK by requiring a customs declaration and if someone fraudulently fails to do so and is caught, they face criminal sanctions and the loss of their hauliage licence. Nope. Ireland retains its own standards on food and other goods. The open border means that those goods will not be checked when passing the border; it doesn't mean that they can be legally sold in Ireland. At the moment, there are certain pharmaceutical goods that can be sold in Ireland but not in the UK and vice versa. We have an open border, but it doesn't mean that all the same goods are sold in both countries. Again, there is a risk that someone might illegally bring such goods into Ireland and try to sell them. That risk still exists with a hard border in the North. It is impossible to police that entire border. The way you stop those goods being sold is that you enforce the regulations in Ireland. In simple terms, if the UK has chlorinated chicken and Ireland doesn't allow it to be sold, the FSA can carry out checks of supermarkets and such and if they find chlorinated chicken they can fine the supermarket. Someone who goes to the effort of illegally importing chlorinated chicken and repackaging it in Ireland is in no better or worse position than someone in Ireland who tries to produce it in violation of food safety standards. No deal will mean a hard border in Northern Ireland. This issue transcends economics and goes to the heart of the peace process. The whole reason the Irish government is insistent on the backstop is that the possibility of a hard border is our no.1 concern, far beyond the risk to the economy (which the EU has already said they will provide grant aid for in the event of loss).
