The interest of the national authorities who if they do not apply the WTO rules to your goods must do so also to the Chinese, to the Turkish, to the Indonesians etc
If it a very foolish and ill informed English conceit of self deception to talk about “small cadre in Brussels.”
In fact it is the deliberate falseness of those who are selling you this argument.
My boss doesn’t give a fig if your cargo gets through customs or not. Customs holds are your problem, not his.
He has no interest in tweaking the nose of our country’s customs department by allowing a box that’s on hold to leave our property. Nor is he interested in criminal charges that are sure to apply if he knowingly violates the law.
So you admit your ignorance?
Because it’s international law.
If the UK suspended its border for convenience of incoming EU trucks or outgoing UK trucks into the EU, it has to do that for the entire world.
That’s not a concern merely of some cartoon Brussels villains.
Really.
Because it’s advantageous for Europeans, including Britain. A British company can sell products to Germany and know its technicians can repair faults without worrying about borders. Its experts can go on secondments to Berlin without fear of being blocked. It can recruit the best talent from the whole of the EU. Engineers can offer their skills to the whole of the EU. It allows 28 countries to compete on the same terms as the States of the US.
Why? Because it allows small countries to have the clout of a superpower? That’s not a bug, that’s a feature. One which the Uk has benefited from for over forty years, but Brexiters have failed to appreciate. Now you’re going to see yourself inflicted to it. Why should it be changed to suit you?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works. I’m sorry, but there’s no nice way to put this. You do not get to flout international trade regulations simply because of what you see as “common sense” - and that you think that you can should make it very clear to everyone paying attention that your “common sense” is neither. “Only a small cadre of people in Washington” care if you bring a truck full of discount medicine over the canadian border, but attempts to do so will still end up with you in detained and whoever hired you in serious hot water.
The reason the EU, a group of 27 countries - countries that are, economically, vastly different - can get away with what is literally the largest coherent free trade area in the world has directly to do with the free movement of people and information, and the combined regulatory structure. It’s baked into the whole thing. I’m really not going to get into the details here, but rest assured that if it weren’t for the free movement, the trade union would look VERY different.
You misunderstand - in the past, the EU would have taken no particular position between the UK and Spain in this hypothetical. The reason the EU would take Spain’s side here is because the UK will then no longer be part of the EU. That’s just a basic reality - in any given trade dispute between the UK and any given member of the EU post-brexit, the EU will always have the member’s side, because that’s how trade unions work. It’s sort of like if you left NATO, then complained that NATO was no longer taking your suggestions on how to run NATO as seriously - obviously they’re not going to listen to your requests as much, you just left.
"We can just ignore international trade laws is more than fanciful.
I find it interesting that rather than “Brexit means Brexit”, the Brexit supporters on this thread seem to be going to great lengths to explain why Brexit won’t really have to mean Brexit and we can carry on as normal as long as everyone looks the other way.
I mean, I thought a main reason for voting to leave was meant to be to “protect our borders”? But now we are meant to ignore border checks between the UK and the EU, which will have the knock-on effect of meaning that border checks will also have to be ignored for those sealed boxes coming in from China, Iran and the People’s Republic of Terroristan. So, really, cui bono?
The arguments drawn by the Catexit people were parallel: “we’ll be out of Spain but not out of the EU” is one of their biggest hits. EU officers would point out “our treaties include Spain, not any pieces of it which separate; if any do so, they will have to request entry same as anybody else”; Catexiters either did not report it or, when forced to face it, claimed that it was that officer’s “personal opinion”, or that it’s time for the Catalan Empire to come into its own again. And at least the British Empire was real, once upon a time!
Indeed.
The control is at the port of entry (legal port of entry) and the control officials give no fucks about the opinions of people who ignore the established laws and rules.
The knowing evasions generate fines and sometimes yes, criminal charges.
Unfortunately this is completely wrong headed.
I do not have opinions about the domestic UK workings, but the rules of the customs and international trade are not some boring thing invented by the EU or a difference of culture between the EU and the UK.
the WTO, very much the creation of the Anglosaxons - motivated heavily by the USA and its anglo cultural allies - is rules based and is that way all around.
This is NOT something invented and elaborated by the evil Continentals as the English Brexiters keep bizarrely implying. This is the way the international goods trade rules work globally and have for many decades. The reason they work and are organized on this rules basis is that the subjective, “hey have a Pint with me mate and wink wnk nudge nudge” application is historically the source of great corruption and the discrimination against not favored nations. This is the term “most favored nation” that is a binding term of law in the trade law that gets written into the national law.
It was very much the Americans who have (rightly) pushed for these normalizations.
It is 100 percent incoherent and non factual to talk about small cadres in Brussels and about the EU culture.
This is international trade law and operations! That the English have forgotten it actually applies to the Europe when you leave the trade club is not the fault of the Brussels Evilocrats!
As I noted, while this is indeed true, from the perspective of the UK it is likely indeed worth the cost and the risk, because you will be in the Hard Crash out Brexit in a state of the desperation.
But the risk analysis of the EU members, their state of risk is different, they will not be in the same desperation and they will be facing in this scenario the very large risks of being exposed to multiple legal attacks to get the same waiver benefits by the WTO members.
it is in fact also the basic economics analysis - one of the sources of the USA wealth is this efficiency.
it is a weird feature of reading the Brexiters arguments that it comes down to “we want to keep all the Free Trade zone benefits, we just don’t want to comply with anything that is annoying to us socially.”
I agree. It’ll make sense in the emergency but the tradeoff will be British people forced to buy expensive, shoddy products that haven’t been checked for compliance. Don’t people realise that the open border will be taken advantage of? Thanks, Brexiters.
And if you ask them for a specific example of what ‘annoys’ them, they can’t say, as it’s all emotion and years of fake news.
I hope, Ramira, that not all Brits have been tarred with the idiot brush in Europe because of this disaster.
We imagined that you would be much more organized. and coherent. That has been the great surprise.
The problem has been years of media propaganda (even from newspapers that were in favour of joining the EEC back in the 1970s) blaming “Europe” for all the UK’s ills, combined with an easily suggestible (and not a little racist) electorate.
Absolutely. And while several others in this thread demonstrably have more knowledge of trade and borders than I do, it would be nice if they tempered their apparent certainty with just a little acknowledgement that they don’t have all the answers, either.
Firstly it’s not to suit me, it won’t make a lot of difference to me one way or the other. Secondly, I don’t believe the UK is a net beneficiary of the EU in its current form.
I’ll take your word for it. But regardless, while it is a feature, it unfortunately still has some bugs.
No, I understand, I would just prefer the EU in its current form did not exist at all.
The vote was never about protecting borders for me, it was about moving away from subsidising a corrupt, interfering, unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.
Not true in my case. Firstly there was that absurd case in the European Court a few years ago that forced all insurers to stop “discriminating” based on gender. Then more recently there is the European Online Dispute Resolution platform, which simply duplicates (no doubt at vast expense) processes that already exist. In both cases a huge amount of money wasted for no discernible benefit whatsoever. There are other examples, those just happen to be two I am familiar with.
As someone said earlier, its exasperation that we have to explain this stuff, over and over and over again.
We’ll have to disagree there until a concrete benefit of Brexit is offered.
Babies and bathwater comes to mind.
Which would have meant Europe becomes relatively insignificant, poorer, and dominated by other powers.
That ‘layer’ of bureaucracy is a red herring, as it ensures a single set of bureaucracy for the whole EU. Rather than business having to deal with 28 different customs and regulatory regimes, there’s one. I’ve yet to see a genuine example of interference, and as for corruption, many of the accusations against the EU are actually the fault of certain countries, not the EU infrastructure itself. Of course, the UK has been at the forefront of combatting the corruption that exists and has made great strides, and now…we’re buggering off. To become enthralled to the corrupt behemoth across the pond, thanks to the corrupt behemoth astride the Volga.
Does the ODR simply replicate what existed in the UK, or does it in fact extend a model to the whole EU, based on UK best practice?
And I can’t see what’s terrible about gender discrimination being stopped.
As what?
the subject matter of the GQ question is very clear, it is subject to the known physical and the know legal subjects.
These are certain things.
the only non certain thing is whether you English will decide that after cutting off your own noses to spite the evil Continentals, you will decide to gouge out your own eyes for some strange reason based on what seems to be a total miscomprehension of the international trade and the complete ignoring of the actual free trade benefits, for the obsessing over some semi-mythical issues that your tabloid press like to blame Brussels over.
This is a ludicrous argument.
Quartz is attempting to argue that because something has not yet happened then no predictions of what may occur are valid.
I will also point out that upstream Quartz also said something equally risible that has somehow been let to slide: the hard border between the US and Canada.
This border, with its many inspections and exemptions and international cooperative agreements, is the result of decades of negotiations including the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and the newest agreement the USMCA deal (which has yet to be ratified).
The essentially smooth yet officially hard border is the result of countless thousands of people-hours of negotiations over several decades.
At the end of March, the UK is currently set to throw all of its decades-old trade agreements into the bin.
The UK can do whatever it wants when it comes to letting immigrants and cargo in, including Theresa May declaring “don’t check anything, open the floodgates” but it’ll be a far different matter for items heading into the EU, so predicting chaos for those attempting to enter the EU seems obvious.
When the UK leaves there will be no difference between the UK and lower bungholia as far as the EU is concerned.
It provides a common platform for the resolution of online vendors disputes, valid across the multiple jurisdictions including the EU associated countries.
it apparently offends some kinds of English sensibilities, the idea that there are foreigners in the world who will want possibly to use some common platform and not a United Kingdom platform for the trading disputes resolutions.
the great horror and expense, the trade facilitation when all the right thinking people in the world will obviously want to use a UK platform if they trade with the English firm.
A better explanation
Ostend can’t do it: 'Impossible' for Seaborne's Brexit port to be ready for March - BBC News
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
My specific beef with the EODR is not so much that it exists, but that firms were essentially required to use it even when they only traded in the UK and a (better) UK version of the same service was already available. It would have been very easy to draft the regulations to exclude this possibility but nobody bothered, which is bound to happen in an organisation trying to cover every base.
The “discrimination” in insurance was nothing of the sort, it was pricing policies differently where gender statistically made a difference to the risk. Insurers are no longer allowed to do that, making everyone (on average) slightly worse off.
Oh My God. How is this even possible? Brexit is literally the opposite of getting on with life as normal. And how? Seriously? You are blaming Brussels for the UK’s decision?
Mind-blown.
No, I’m saying that in the unlikely event of no deal being agreed by 29 March, it’s in no-one’s interest except the politicians to stop movement of goods in the same way as before. In practice of course, this likely means there will be some sort of last-minute agreement or delay in actually leaving, to make it all official.
I get your drift, for the folks driving the trucks, inspecting cargo, raising the gates and buying or selling things, yes they want the goods to move.
But the law is the law. France can’t just let the UK’s stuff in without a trade agreement, unless they’re going to offer the same terms to everybody. The UK is in the same boat.
Granted, the UK may risk the ire of the rest of the world to keep goods flowing into their borders, but the EU isn’t. Not to protect a country that decided to break away from the EU.