Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ireland & the Single Market post Brexit

Options
1…91011121315»

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,123 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    murphaph wrote: »
    Is there scope for even larger, more efficient ferries to ply the routes I wonder? The passage cost per lorry must vary a fair bit depending on which ferry it's booked on. Larger ones have presumably got lower unit costs I would have thought?
    There are countervailing considerations, though - the larger the ferry, the fewer ports have the infrastructure to accommodate it - you can build more port infrastructure, of course, but that can be very expensive if it involves widening or deepening channels, or extending quays or jetties. Plus, larger ferries take longer to load and unload, and therefore (again, unless you enlarge the port) you can offer fewer services in a 24-hour period, and so a smaller choice of destinations and/or sailing times.


  • Options
    #423
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    20silkcut wrote:
    It’s lorries coming back empty that seems to be the biggest issue. We export more than we import from the EU. But surely every lorry coming from France should be able to find some goods and produce to bring back? Especially with no paperwork or tarriffs etc between us. Surely there is an opening there to supply goods from the continent to the U.K. via the NI back door for Irish hauliers . If the U.K. starts imposing more stringent checks.


    Adapting to Brexit has a ways to go but back loads have always been factored into direct sailings between Ireland and continental ports.

    It's more a problem for trucks that previously used the landbridge and picked up or dropped off goods in the UK on the way. Brexit has put paid to those efficiencies.

    I don't see smuggling goods into Britain via Northern Ireland having much prospect. Apart from the circuitous route, there might be checks at both Irish and Scottish ports of entry. And if Scotland leaves the UK........


  • Options
    #424
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    There are countervailing considerations, though - the larger the ferry, the fewer ports have the infrastructure to accommodate it - you can build more port infrastructure, of course, but that can be very expensive if it involves widening or deepening channels, or extending quays or jetties. Plus, larger ferries take longer to load and unload, and therefore (again, unless you enlarge the port) you can offer fewer services in a 24-hour period, and so a smaller choice of destinations and/or sailing times.
    Yes I had considered the issues regarding infrastructure and wondered to myself would it not be reasonable to expect the cost burden of such infrastructure to be spread across the union, that is to say, largely EU funded? At least on the continental side perhaps?


  • Options
    #425
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,123 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    murphaph wrote: »
    Yes I had considered the issues regarding infrastructure and wondered to myself would it not be reasonable to expect the cost burden of such infrastructure to be spread across the union, that is to say, largely EU funded? At least on the continental side perhaps?
    Well, two questions would arise.

    First, is it reasonable to expect the EU to subsidise transport infrastructure to better connect remote areas of the Union top the centre? "Reasonable to expect" might be putting it a bit high, but it's certainly not unreasonable to suggest it, or unreasonable to ask for it.

    Secondly, if you're going to spend whatever amount this would cost, is this the most efficient way to spend it? We're already running some of the largest ro-ro freight ferries in the world on the IRL/rest of EU routes; how much cheaper will the passage be if we run still larger ferries? At some point the law of diminishing returns sets in? Plus, you have to offset factors like the extra time, and so longer journeys, involved in operating big ferries. If loading/unloading times are increased by 30 mins at each end, that extends journeys by an hour in each direction, so you have to pay for a lorry and driver for an extra hour; could that exceed the fare reduction on the ferry? We might do better to spend the money on getting more frequent services, or a wider variety of routes, than on larger ferries.


  • Options
    #426
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Peregrinus wrote:
    First, is it reasonable to expect the EU to subsidise transport infrastructure to better connect remote areas of the Union top the centre? "Reasonable to expect" might be putting it a bit high, but it's certainly not unreasonable to suggest it, orß unreasonable to ask for it.


    Investment in ports - and the roads to them - is well within the EU's remit through both the Cohesion and Regional programmes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,123 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    First Up wrote: »
    Investment in ports - and the roads to them - is well within the EU's remit through both the Cohesion and Regional programmes.
    Yes, of course. But the fact that the EU can do something — as in, it's within their legal competence to do it — is not an argument for saying that the EU should do it. So you'd need to make a case both that this money should be spent and that this is the best way of spending it.


  • Options
    #428
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    I guess ships the scale of the MV Celine are viable as they already exist but the infrastructure at each end may need upgrading to accommodate such vessels more widely.


  • Options
    #429
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Peregrinus wrote:
    Yes, of course. But the fact that the EU can do something — as in, it's within their legal competence to do it — is not an argument for saying that the EU should do it. So you'd need to make a case both that this money should be spent and that this is the best way of spending it.

    I am confident that the Commission and Parliament would be overwhelmingly in favour for both political and economic reasons.


  • Options
    #430
    CelticRambler
    Registered Users Posts: 6,720 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    murphaph wrote: »
    Yes I had considered the issues regarding infrastructure and wondered to myself would it not be reasonable to expect the cost burden of such infrastructure to be spread across the union, that is to say, largely EU funded? At least on the continental side perhaps?

    For the reasons outlined by Peregrinus above, yes it would "not be unreasonable" ... but it might be more logical (and therefore more reasonable) for the EU to invest in measures that would reduce unnecessary transport. I'm thinking in particular of the many over-and-back again trips made by, for example, foodstuffs - being grown in one country, exported to be part-processed in another, then re-imported to be packaged for sale ... and re-exported to the end consumer.


  • Options
    #431
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,123 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    First Up wrote: »
    I am confident that the Commission and Parliament would be overwhelmingly in favour for both political and economic reasons.
    If the economic case is there. But I haven't seen any actual figures on this. How much would have to be spent in order to reduce the cost of passage for a truck by, say, 10%? And if we spent that money in other ways, could we achieve better outcomes than reducing the cost of passage by 10%?

    I don't know the answer to either question. But they're the kind of question that will need to be answered by anybody making a serious pitch for this expenditure.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    CelticRambler wrote: »
    For the reasons outlined by Peregrinus above, yes it would "not be unreasonable" ... but it might be more logical (and therefore more reasonable) for the EU to invest in measures that would reduce unnecessary transport. I'm thinking in particular of the many over-and-back again trips made by, for example, foodstuffs - being grown in one country, exported to be part-processed in another, then re-imported to be packaged for sale ... and re-exported to the end consumer.
    It's an interesting question but there is clearly some conflict with the idea of a single market once you start imposing restrictions on how far it often an item can be transported within said single market. Personally I think it would be very bad for Ireland if the EU tried to impose such controls, being as we are on the periphery of Europe.

    Where I make an exception is animal welfare. I do believe the EU should impose max distances/travel times for livestock, which would probably end the trade in live animal exports from Ireland.


  • Options
    #433
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,123 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    murphaph wrote: »
    It's an interesting question but there is clearly some conflict with the idea of a single market once you start imposing restrictions on how far it often an item can be transported within said single market. Personally I think it would be very bad for Ireland if the EU tried to impose such controls, being as we are on the periphery of Europe.

    Where I make an exception is animal welfare. I do believe the EU should impose max distances/travel times for livestock, which would probably end the trade in live animal exports from Ireland.
    To be fair, the suggestion wasn't that there should be restrictions on how far you can transport stuff, but rather investment in measures that would reduce unecessary transport - e.g. make it more economically attractive to process stuff locally to where it is produced.

    You mention the live animal trade. We've already hugely] reduced the proportion of meat that is exported on the hoof, without bans on exporting live animals. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have live export bans, if animal welfare dictates it, but I am making the point that there are obviously other ways of encouraging change in trade flows and patterns.


  • Options
    #434
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    CelticRambler wrote:
    For the reasons outlined by Peregrinus above, yes it would "not be unreasonable" ... but it might be more logical (and therefore more reasonable) for the EU to invest in measures that would reduce unnecessary transport. I'm thinking in particular of the many over-and-back again trips made by, for example, foodstuffs - being grown in one country, exported to be part-processed in another, then re-imported to be packaged for sale ... and re-exported to the end consumer.

    Highly unlikely for a number of reasons.

    The single market facilitates international links and specialisation. That encouraged the sophisticated value chains which have been a big driver of economic growth across the EU.

    The single market also facilitates choice, so we can all enjoy the different climates and specialities from across 27 countries. The EU has no desire to stop that

    Companies in membership States are free to produce what they like and their governments are free to help them. But consumer demand and production/transport efficiencies will decide what is produced and where.

    There was a short-lived EU experiment a couple of years ago called Motorway of the Sea, which tried to move trucks off roads and on to ferries. (We got a ferry to St Nazaire out of it for a few months). It didn't take and I doubt they will try again.


  • Options
    #435
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Peregrinus wrote:
    If the economic case is there. But I haven't seen any actual figures on this. How much would have to be spent in order to reduce the cost of passage for a truck by, say, 10%? And if we spent that money in other ways, could we achieve better outcomes than reducing the cost of passage by 10%?


    Cost is less an issue than speed and reliability but the main motivation is political solidarity and support.

    French ports have long been equipped to handle cross channel traffic Cherbourg and Dunkirk are well connected to the French road system as are others. Roscoff might need work and is a bit more remote.


  • Options
    #436
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,410 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    First Up wrote: »
    Cost is less an issue than speed and reliability but the main motivation is political solidarity and support.

    French ports have long been equipped to handle cross channel traffic Cherbourg and Dunkirk are well connected to the French road system as are others. Roscoff might need work and is a bit more remote.

    There is a cost saving to be had by not requiring a driver to accompany the truck. Unaccompanied trucks have a significant saving for hauliers which could counter the extra cost of the longer sea journey. The extra time is not huge if it is reliable and the journey is not super critical time ways.


  • Options
    #437
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Sam Russell wrote:
    There is a cost saving to be had by not requiring a driver to accompany the truck. Unaccompanied trucks have a significant saving for hauliers which could counter the extra cost of the longer sea journey. The extra time is not huge if it is reliable and the journey is not super critical time ways.

    That has always been an option but it has nothing to do with what we were talking about, which was the cost of upgrading continental ports and roads to handle more traffic from Ireland.


  • Options
    #438
    reslfj
    Registered Users Posts: 876 ✭✭✭reslfj


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    To be fair, the suggestion wasn't that there should be restrictions on how far you can transport stuff, but rather investment in measures that would reduce unecessary transport - e.g. make it more economically attractive to process stuff locally to where it is produced.

    ...

    A resent research report on producing tomatoes in Denmark vs. in Spain + transport showed that out of the summer season the DK option resulted in 8 times more CO2 than importing from Spanish.

    Modern transport on roads, trains or ships is fairly efficient.

    Lars :)


  • Options
    #439
    reslfj
    Registered Users Posts: 876 ✭✭✭reslfj


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    There is a cost saving to be had by not requiring a driver to accompany the truck. Unaccompanied trucks have a significant saving for hauliers which could counter the extra cost of the longer sea journey. The extra time is not huge if it is reliable and the journey is not super critical time ways.

    There is also a possible significant saving with not shipping the tractor (front end with engine and drivers seat) but using a 'continental' tractor across EU26 and beyond.

    DFDS just announced they would add another ship with fewer cabins on its Rosslare – Dunkirk freight route.

    https://www.dfds.com/en/about/media/news/rosslare-dunkirk-ferry-route-expands-capacity

    Lars :)


  • Options
    #440
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,410 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    reslfj wrote: »
    There is also a possible significant saving with not shipping the tractor (front end with engine and drivers seat) but using a 'continental' tractor across EU26 and beyond.

    DFDS just announced they would add another ship with fewer cabins on its Rosslare – Dunkirk freight route.

    https://www.dfds.com/en/about/media/news/rosslare-dunkirk-ferry-route-expands-capacity

    Lars :)

    That is the next economy. It takes longer to load and unload, but there are savings. Some trailers are shipped that way and unloaded by the dockers. The EU26 tractors would be LHD which helps.


  • Options
    #441
    ambro25
    Registered Users Posts: 5,994 ✭✭✭ambro25


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    That is the next economy. It takes longer to load and unload, but there are savings. Some trailers are shipped that way and unloaded by the dockers. The EU26 tractors would be LHD which helps.
    It does? That's hard to believe, if you've ever seen dockers load unaccompanied trailers onto RoRos with those specialized quick-connect mini-tractors. Yokes like these (maybe a bit smaller, but not much), with a rotating seat/steering/pedal (a bit like this, but not the whole cabin). I can't seem to find a photo or vid, but I used to see them at Zeebrugge, and that's going back some years back now. They were going at it like wacky races!


  • Advertisement
Advertisement