Because we had a hard border before we joined the EU and it wasn’t a problem. There being a hard border is not in itself a problem. Just because the US and Canada make a cock-up of it - especially given one of the nations is the US - doesn’t mean that two other nations will also cock it up.
Okay, to prevent a cock-up, there must already have been a lot of planning, right?
So what planning has been put into it by the U.K.? By France? What steps are in place as of March 30 to treat all trucks and ships coming from Britain to France the same as shipping from China, with the same import reviews as goods from China? What documentation protocols has the British government worked out with the EU to ensure quick entry of British goods under the EU rules for goods from non-EU countries entering the EU?
Because as Ramira has pointed out, if France treats shipping from Britain more leniently than it does shipping from other non-EU countries, it will be in breach of the WTO. What concrete steps are in place to bring in the hard border in less than three months?
To prevent a cock-up, Britain and France must have put a lot of planning and resources into the border control and goods-shipment issues, right?
If Britain and France have worked out in advance how the hard border will work, there should be some news articles on it that you can point us to, please?
The world has changed since 1973, though. In particular UK trade, commerce, industry, foreign relations, society, have all changed, and they have all changed in ways which reflect, are conditioned by, and/or are dependent on the open border.
Could they change back again? Yes, but it would be an enormously painful transition in the short term (esp. if it has to happen in the context of a crash-out Brexit, without adequate preparation, and without agreement from or co-operation of other states). And in the long-term it makes for a significantly poorer UK than would otherwise be the case.
[Moderating]
This thread is about the factual situation of trade relations between the UK and the rest of Europe, as they are under the EU, were before the EU, and will be after Brexit. This thread is not about personal views about said situations, as those would be better suited for GD (we have at least one appropriate thread already). This thread is most emphatically not about attacking other posters concerning their personal views. Attacking other posters, as always, belongs in the BBQ Pit.
In other words, stay factual, and everyone, cool it.
We had a hard border before, but we also had existing trade deals and agreements in place. That does not apply this time round. We’re starting with zero.
The WTO didn’t exist last time. That binds over how the world handles tariffs and trade. No Deal immediately slaps massive tariffs against all our world engagements unless and until they are removed through negotiation.
How the UK and the world trade and make things has changed, too. Much, much more is trans-boundary. There’s no clear-cut national industries, and everything relies on frictionless movement of goods and men, which is a massively different world since 1972.
You might also remember that the UK was the sick man of Europe in 1972, because the EEC/EU understood these things and the Uk was behind the times.
Now, Quartz, please offered reasoned, evidence-based retorts to this, and show us how and why the UK can defy physics and go back to trading as it if were 1972 with no trade deals without any massive harm to the country.
Because right now, your thesis is extremely simplistic and, dare I say, wilfully ignorant.
Remember, we’ve been told to keep it factual. Why not make a start.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Having worked in Japan importing products when two major changes were made, I can see how chaos can occur.
In both cases, the regulations were finalized six months to a couple of years before implementation, but still caused considerable problems, and the percentage of good were much smaller in scale than what would happen on a no deal Brexit.
Apparently our resident imports and exports boffin describes that as ‘cocking it up’.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The whole point of the European movement was to encourage economic integration so as to obviate any possibility of trade (let alone real) wars (and given the major push towards the Single Market by - guess who? Margaret Thatcher).
Small wonder then that disentangling it all is far more complicated than imagining the pre-1973 situation can be reverted to overnight.
That’s the flaw, assuming No Deal means automatically reverting to 1972. We don’t. 1972 can never come back. Brexit means going into a new situation Britain has never been in before.
It’s asinine to argue we managed then, so we’ll manage now, for that reason. We once managed without vaccines or computers, too, but that doesn’t mean dusting off the abacus and adopting homeopathy exclusively on the NHS is a good idea.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Until the late 90s there was no public internet.
So why can’t we just switch it off (for the UK only) and go back to the good old days?
Ramsgate isn’t ready for the extra ferries Brexit will require, says Tory councillor for the harbour: Ramsgate 'can not be ready' for Brexit ferries - BBC News
Comments, Quartz?
That remains to be seen. Anyway, the point I made is that there is no evidence that there will be chaos. There may be; there may not be. No, companies engaging in risk management is not evidence. To assert that there will be chaos is just as unfounded and ignorant as to assert that there will not. Remember the site masthead - fighting ignorance? There is no evidence so we cannot draw a conclusion. I look at the politicians and despair but I do not jump to a conclusion.
Since it is already known that the UK government only recent started the actual market observable planning operations, it is being seen right now. If one desires to.
Of course if the standard of the evidence is “already happening” before the actual event, then you will never see such evidence until after the fact.
this is indeed properly called an ostrichism.
Without a deal, there will be, that is very obvious given the pure physical constraints that exist.
Actually yes it is evidence. Merely you stating it is not is a non factual assertion. For the analysts and the operational staff in the private sector tracking the potential for the impact it is a huge warning sign (not politicians making noise, us who are paid to quietly privately being supporting or making the decisions around chaos), the deployment of the unprecedented cash to stockpile the parts and goods for emergency is a very good market signal - in the timing and the volume of the very economically inefficient is waiving a red flag.
As is the short falls in the physical preparations in the processing deployment, in terms of the availability of the staffs, the vehicles.
Of course since the fire has not actually yet started (and might yet not be ignited) a certain kind of ostritch observer can always claim there’s not evidence that a tinder dry forest with the idiots walking around with cigarettes is not a proof of a forest fire. No it is not, it is for anyone with an expertise a proof of a real and a substantial risk.
This is a false statement relative to the GQ forum.
there is ample evidence that the chaos is a well founded and substantial risk that the private companies with no political position to take are making extremely expensive investments to mitigate.
It is most certainly not ignorant. It is ignorant is to hand waive away evidence
Incredible. this is the example of the person who believes that until the physical hole in the ship that the steel of the hull can fail, and waives away all the evidence, all the warning signs as mere opinion…
Well the GQ question is answered on many levels. With over 40years of an increasing good trade integration and at least 20 years of the high level of integration of the supply chains based on the open border and common standards across all the physical goods production, 40 years of the population growth along with this, 40 years of volume growth pushed along by both the population growth … and no physical infrastructure investment to handle checks because it was not needed: these are the factors.
The physical reality is what it is. And it says there is the chaos from lack of capacity sans an agreement, a deal.
We need to scientifically test this with falsifiability.
Quartz, what would you accept as evidence that no Deal will do harm?
If you can’t offer an answer to this, ask yourself if you are just refusing to accept what goes against your preconceived dogma.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yes there was. Have you read the posts previous to yours?
Thus, the GQ question is answered as for the chaos, again on the GQ basis the evidence used by the professionals to forecast says - thus the GQ response is the professionals in the private sector who are allocating real cash money, see the real and substantial chaos risk. Thus from a non political non subjective point of view, it can be said clearly that non political parties see a real, a substantial economic risk.
It is a pedantic over-correction. From the perspective of the question it is not a not unreasonable general statement to say “no internet” circa 1990 relative to the concept of the public economy.
Certainly in the relationship to the utilization of the internet proper (not just the private networks) in the modern goods trade. until the late 1990s even the early 2000s we still had the bills being faxed as the majority of the documentary exchanges.
Even in the financial sector dematerialisation (electronicization) of the trade flows (securities) were from the 2000s.
As a middle-class Brit, sitting in Middle England, I don’t see why there is any argument. If I ran a business that depended on imports from Europe, I would be increasing stock levels to iron out the problems that will inevitably occur in May/June. ‘Chaos’ implies a lot of people running around like headless chickens, and although there will be disruption, I doubt that chaos will ensue.
Both sides are making a strong case to support their ideology; it’s most likely that reality will fall somewhere in between the two extremes.
Not a problem at all. Just a *little *Trouble, is all.
*What *warehouse are you keeping this increased stock in? Given that the pre-existing ones were frequently closed/new ones were never built for new factories because of modern JIT manufacturing logistics.