Conflicting Irish views on #Brexit, but right now there are no N/S meetings taking place..

If Theresa May made a political mistake (aside from reading the polls too literally) it was to ignore the narrow margin of victory for the Leave camp. Now she’s looking for help to navigate through some difficult, narrow and potentially treacherous waters.

So what is Brexit, and what will it look like? Two things seem to be a given, which sit outwith the negotiation process: the UK will leave the single market and the customs union. Both pose big problems for Ireland (the island, I mean).

There appear to be two schools of thought on where this leaves us, and what might be done about it. One, from Gerry Adams, takes the view that the British (despite what they’ve actually said):

…are very good at looking after their national interest. If the British government has its way all the talk about soft border, invisible border is nonsense. It’s the frontier between the European Union and the non-European Union and it is on the island of Ireland.

It will be a hard border and that will be devastating for everybody, the island economically, in terms of the Good Friday agreement, protections that are there for human rights.

He goes on:

The people in the North have voted to stay in the European Union and I am very critical of the European Union, but the prospect of one part of the island being in and one being out just is just too dire and you need to swallow your reservations and stick with what the people in the North look for.

The other Republican view on this comes from Bertie Ahern (a voice increasingly being rehabilitated in the Republic), who is reported in the Irish Times saying that:

“There are no meetings taking place, it’s absolutely extraordinary because anywhere else in the world where you need your parliament, your government, the cooperation with other countries there are no meetings taking place.”

The report continues:

Urging Northern Ireland politicians to find a way to restore the Executive and the Stormont Assembly, Ahern, who helped negotiate the Good Friday Agreement, said it saddened him to see the power-sharing institutions at a logjam and appealed to political leaders to find “necessary compromises.”

“Over the summer period, they have to reflect on what is most important. Is it the future, economy, trade, people, capital goods, infrastructure, what is the most important? For God’s sake, we want them back doing the job they are paid for and elected to do,” he said.

He’s less admiring of the UK’s capacity to protect its own national interest than Adams:

Dismissing London’s hopes of quickly-negotiated, successful free trade deals, Mr Ahern said: “Trump says they’ll do a good deal but you know what that means; it will be a deal where it’ll be sold out, if it’s quick deal it’ll be a bad deal. The big danger with the beef is they’ll go to Australia or New Zealand and that’s where the real danger is for us,” he said.

Saying that there are very few positives about Brexit, stating: “On the advantages, I think we all agree it’s a deficit, it’s a negative. They made a democratic decision and we have to live with that decision. It won’t go away for us.

“I don’t think anyone including the Treasury or the Foreign Office had a plan B, even Boris [JOHNSON] and these guys who were blustering away in the campaign, changing their tune every day and saying whatever was on top of their heads about the national health. In fairness to them, they didn’t think they were going to win.”

There is “no hope” that the United Kingdom can reach a comprehensive agreement” by March 2019: “It’s not going to be done, it’s not humanly possible. What we need to be homing in on is how the transitional arrangement is going to work, how that’s going to play out.”

There’s a lot more granular detail to all of this of course. If the UK is freed of EU rule-taking around trade it will seek every means possible to leverage that advantage which will largely be at the expense of its English-speaking neighbour.

And there is a huge concern in the Co Cavan border area where agriculture makes up the vast majority of cross-border trade. But the land trade border (ROI sales account for just 5% of NI turnover) is unlikely to be the major economic threat to the Republic.

This is a long game, and one which will need every sinew of Irish political interest (north and south) to stay awake in whatever committee is relevant to the many decisions there are to be made that will shape the final outcome.

And that’s in part about making sure those with direct or indirect interests the future prosperity of the island’s economy, such as it is, stays awake to nature of the challenges coming down the Brexit track and respond to them earlier rather than later.

Of all the main Irish players only Adams seems to be gambling on a hard border. A hard border could be a direct corollary of a hard Brexit, but only in the extreme (and highly unlikely) scenario that some class of cold war sets in between the UK and the EU.

Because there is no preset solution to the current situation does not mean one will not eventually be found. But only if there’s someone to represent the island’s interest north as well as south. Time, at last, to put country before party Gerry?

  • Skibo

    The CTA will only cover the movement of Irish and UK citizens and will not cover the EU citizens who can freely enter Ireland. Who stops them or is the UK accepting that they can allow them into the North but restrict them with passport control at ports and airports from access to GB
    Where have the UK stated that they will not collect tariffs?
    They have said that they believe they can get access to a free trade area and in such a case there would be no requirement to collect tariffs. They have stated that if they do not get a good deal they will walk away with the impression that they would have to trade via the WTO. Such conditions will require tariffs on imports and exports. Where have they said they will not collect this financial stream?

  • Skibo

    Since the UK joined the EEC there have been exceptions and possibly this time there may be more but during that time the UK was a member. Why would the EU accommodate a country outside the EU?

  • Damien Mullan

    The UK is at 20% with a plan to go further, 15% has been sighted as a goal, having gone from 28% in 2010 when the Tory/Lib coalition came into office. Remember the process of corporate tax rate reduction first occurred under Gordon Brown’s premiership. It’s been a process almost 10 years old at this stage.

    The question Mick posed was in the context of a post-Brexit Ireland, being subject to harsh treatment by the French and Germans over low Irish corporate tax policy. Now, if we are to believe that the French and Germans are going to be harsh to EU member Ireland over corporate tax, yet we are simultaneously asked to believe they are going to be jumping over themselves to do a good trade deal with ex-member low tax haven UK. That can only be seen as the absurd and fantastical outcome it proposes to be. What kind of a signal would that send to current EU members, indeed of the project itself, that they are willing to nail EU member Ireland on the basis of its low corporate tax offering, yet they will bend-over-backwards for former EU member and avowed tax haven UK in its trading terms with the EU. They didn’t bend for Greece, Portugal, Ireland, or Cyprus, and had Spain needed a sovereign and not just a banking recuse, they wouldn’t have bended for them either.

    Macron plans to reduce the French corporate tax rate to 25%, as his Prime Minister outlined to the French Parliament just two weeks ago, in the new President’s programme for government. The Germans are also mulling reductions in their corporate tax rate too. So I don’t see a major threat coming from the EU to Ireland’s corporate tax rate, not when the old culture on the continent of higher corporate tax begins to fade, as both Marcon and Merkel institute reductions in their corporate tax offerings. That culture change at national level in France and Germany will then filter to EU Commission level not long there after. The Apple case, and others like it, that the Competition Commissioner has taken over these past few years, will soon seem anachronistic once the French and Germans implements corporate tax reductions and reforms.

    What the Barclays Bank announcement to expand operations in Dublin today means, is that Ireland’s adherence to a competitive cooperate tax offering since the late 1950’s, it’s strong public support for the EU and Euro, it’s well educated population, it’s stable sensible political environment, in which the two largest parties together command a majority of the electorate and facilitate the establishment of stable government, is all good for competing and expanding mobile capital into Ireland. It’s a fantastic result with many more to come. As the most recent cases of Airbnb as well as Standard Life’s communication with Irish authorities shows. Watch this space as there are many more exciting developments to come.

  • Damien Mullan

    I love the sarcasm. This place can only just about hold on to Bombardier.

  • 05OCT68

    Didn’t Ireland get roasted already by the EU re it’s secret deals on corporation tax?

  • Damien Mullan

    It’s been appealed to the ECJ, with Apple being joined by the Irish government and the U.S. government in that appeal.

    There was partially very good news on this front from the French courts yesterday.

    “A French court has ruled that Google was not liable to pay €1.1 billion in back taxes demanded by the French authorities.

    The Paris administrative court ruled that Google Ireland Limited was not subject to corporate and value-added taxes for the period 2005-2010.

    The court stroke down the tax administration’s demands for back payments.

    The ruling in favour of Google, now part of Alphabet, followed a court adviser’s recommendation that Google did not have a “permanent establishment” or sufficient taxable presence to justify the bill.

    In a statement, the French finance ministry said it was considering an appeal, which must be lodged within two months.”

    https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/0713/889908-google-france-ruling/

  • NotNowJohnny

    To be honest, I thought id made it so absurd that no one could possibly mistake it for a serious post. But there you go.

  • 05OCT68

    Don’t you fear that these company’s might incorporate in London if the UK offers a lower deal than Ireland & without EU influence?

  • Damien Mullan

    We didn’t think May was going to call an early election either, or that Leave was going to win the referendum, or that Trump would best Clinton.

    I think as the Barclays announcement today shows Mick, that while yes, the UK may want to compete against Ireland and others in the low corporate tax sphere, that limited advantage, as the UK has not suggested at anytime, that they are going below Ireland’s long established low corporate tax rate of 12.5%, that limited advantage must be set beside the major advantage that Ireland with the EU and part of the Single Market and Customs Union has. As opposed to a UK that may or may not get a ‘good’ trade deal, and even then, the details and terms of that deal will be commensurately worse than what EU membership offers, this has been a constant and unchanging mantra by both EU institutional leaders and EU national governments. Ireland will always retain this advantage of EU membership over the UK regardless of the UK corporate tax rate, and as France and Germany begin lowering their corporate taxes, the cultural approach of the EU in relation to low corporate taxes will undergo a transformation, as will the animosity and hostility towards Ireland.

    I believe Barclays move today proves this point with the hard capital cash that only these investments crystallize. With Airbnb and Standard Life to follow in the weeks ahead, which again reinforce the calculus of Barclays today, as well as J.P. Morgan two months ago.

  • Damien Mullan

    I might fear that, but then its news like this that makes me think being a member of the Single Market and Customs Union actually means something.

    “The chief executive of JP Morgan has confirmed the company will expand its operations in Ireland after Britain’s exit from the European Union.

    Jamie Dimon met Leo Varadkar in Dublin yesterday to discuss the bank’s expansion plans. “Ireland is at the forefront of training its workforce to keep up with the latest developments, and the country has a global, open environment that will keep it economically competitive,” he said in a statement.

    In May the bank paid €125 million for an office block in Dublin’s docklands with capacity for 1,000 employees. JP Morgan also plans to move staff to European cities including Frankfurt.

    The company’s new office block in Dublin spans 130,000 sq ft and Bloomberg reported that the bank wants to acquire a further…”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jp-morgan-confirms-expansion-inireland-xk0mbdbv2

    “Barclays is in talks with Irish regulators about expanding its presence in Dublin in the run up to Brexit.

    It is the latest financial company to indicate how it is repositioning to cope with the UK’s exit from the EU.

    Barclays said Ireland provided a “natural base” for the bank as it has operated there for 40 years already.

    “In the absence of certainty around… an agreement, we intend to take necessary steps to preserve ongoing market access for our customers.”

    Financial firms have been drawing up contingency plans for how they will continue to access the European single market when the UK leaves the trading bloc.

    Companies in other sectors have also been making plans. Earlier on Friday, UK airline EasyJet said it was planning to set up a subsidiary in Austria.

    The airline must have an air operator certificate in an EU member country to allow it to continue flying between member states after Brexit.

    Barclays currently employs about 100 staff in Dublin and the bank said it was talking to regulators over extending its licence there.
    Ireland’s Government Enterprise and Innovation Minister Frances Fitzgerald said Barclays’ decision to expand its presence in Dublin was “a strong vote of confidence in Ireland’s growing importance as a gateway into the single market”.

    Dublin appears to be well-placed in the race to pick up business from financial firms as they plan their post-Brexit strategies.

    Insurer Legal & General said in May that it planned to relocate parts of its business to the Irish capital. Standard Life is also thought to be likely to choose Dublin.

    US bank JP Morgan is buying a Dublin office with space for 1,000 staff and its chief executive has also held a meeting with the Irish prime minister.

    Japan’s Daiwa Securities, Sumitomo Mitsui and Nomura Holdings will set up subsidiaries in Frankfurt. Goldman Sachs and Standard Chartered are both also reported to be planning Frankfurt moves.
    Deutsche Bank has said it could move up to 4,000 jobs to Frankfurt and other EU locations.

    French banks such as Credit Agricole are more likely to move business to France, and HSBC has indicated it may also move staff to Paris.”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40610573

  • 05OCT68

    Is this hedging if passporting of financial products from outside the EU proves problematic.

  • eamoncorbett

    The danger is that dissidents will fill the hiatus left by a hard Brexit and as for the EU accommodating a non EU country , post Brexit all Irish passport holders in NI will still be European citizens.

  • Damien Mullan

    No non-EU member has passporting of financial products into the EU. The removal of the European Banking Authority (EBA) from London and its relocation to a new EU country, to be decided at the next Council of Ministers meeting, is the clearest indication of that. The ECB’s renewed drive to have Euro clearing within the Eurozone, backup by France and Germany, is other indication of internal housekeeping in areas perceived as loose and vulnerable to outside manipulation.

    After all, who is the final court of attribution in resolving disputes and interprets the Single Market, which the passporting of financial products is apart, it’s the ECJ of course. Is the EU and its member states going to surrender a major portion of its Single Market, its operation, oversight, and resolution functions, to any court other than the ECJ. And can the UK post-Brexit, accept the ECJ as being the court of final arbitration, in relation to matters arising from the financial products trading portion of the Single Market, it wants to retain post-Brexit. I can’t see how the ECJ can be accepted without it potentially forcing a devastating and definitive split in the Conservative Party. I suspect that this maybe why murmurings have been recently made about the ECJ continuing to bind the UK post-Brexit, but these have been only murmurings, when we hear them as more concrete proposals, then the blood will begin to flow from under the door of the 1922 Committee.

    I suspect for these reasons J.P. Morgan and Barclays put their money where their mouth is, and in the case of J.P., bought the One Capital Dock site for 125 million euro, and why Barclays has entered into a rental agreement with Green Reit for the newly defined newly constructed One Molesworth Street, on Dawson Street.

    “Barclays is understood to have agreed a rent of slightly over €554 per sq m (€55 per sq ft) for around 5,574sq m (60,000sq ft) of office space which will have a separate double height entrance on Molesworth Street. The overall office content will extend to 6,611sq m (71,159sq ft).

    Barclays’ new offices will be capable of accommodating more than 400 staff. The bank’s existing office is located at Park Place on Hatch Street where it rents over 1,393sq m (15,000sq ft).”

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/barclays-to-set-up-eu-hub-in-dublin-s-dawson-street-1.3135594

  • Georgie Best

    They already have the HGV levy. How much gouging do they want?

  • Damien Mullan

    What was the growth rate in the North American continent before the Jamestown settlement was established in 1607. Do you think European migration to North America had no discernible impact on growth, or do you think it added to growth.

    Do you think that additional units of labour add nothing to economic growth and output.

    Indeed, they have had spectacular economic performances, less so latterly in the case of Japan, but they also have the most rapidly aging populations on the planet and in the case of the larger Japan, significant problems with deflation over the past 25 years, which a significant intake in foreign migration could very well have mitigated. As the uptick in the inflation rate in Germany since the large influx in refugees and migrates demonstrates, as well as its impact on deceasing the average age of the population as a whole in Germany, and the consequences this will have in adding a new cohort to the younger demographic profile of Germany.

    Let economist David McWilliams Irish Independent article from April this year explain.

    “The first is the census, which is a reason for celebration. The population is rising and heading back to pre-famine levels. This is great news. A rising population in a rich country tells you all you need to know about the economy. In a world of birth control, people have kids when they are confident about the future. Also, rising migration – another acid test for success – reveals that lots of people are moving in and out of the country. This is a good sign.

    http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2017/04/10/the-prognosis-is-promising

    The clearest sign of a successful and desirable country must surely be that of people risking life and limb in order to reach there. If Germany, Britain, and France, were economic basket cases there wouldn’t be as many making the treacherous journey across the Mediterranean.

  • Damien Mullan

    “The members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agree to accord MFN status to each other. Exceptions allow for preferential treatment of developing countries, regional free trade areas and customs unions.”

    As the EU is a Customs Union and Single Market, inherently so by its very existence, it gives preferential treatment to those who are members therein. Equating the customs union status of EU members, with WTO-MFN post-Brexit UK is simply false. The UK must have an inferior WTO position, or a slightly improved one if a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is secured.

    I thought for a good minute what you were stating runnymede was too good to be true, and indeed it was. Twas just bluster and jingoism.

    After all, Prime Ministers don’t go around delivering ‘comfort letters’ to car manufactures everyday of the week.

    https://www.ft.com/content/02a2054a-b7e9-11e6-ba85-95d1533d9a62?mhq5j=e3

    Also, it’s non-tariff related issues that are the more complex to resolve, especially concerning the ECJ as the court of final arbitration.

  • 05OCT68

    Interesting it seems that the corporate world is better disposed to mitigate the effects of Brexit, liquid and unbound by geography, unlike governments rooted by borders & indebted to corporations or owed billions by them for bailouts.

  • Damien Mullan

    And which country was the first on the ball to open up the U.S. market to European Beef again. Why it was Ireland. It had been reported in the summer of 2016, that the UK was to get approval to export beef to the U.S. in January of 2017, but January, and much of the rest of 2017, has since past, and no word on export approval.

    “Irish beef was served in New York City for the first time in 17 years on Monday night, after a ban in 1998 saw all European beef restricted from entry into America.

    The Irish beef last served in the US would be old enough to drive by now, had it the necessary appendages and wherewithal. The US imposed a Europe-wide ban on all beef on 1 January 1998, at the height of the BSE, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (aka “mad cow disease”) crisis.

    That ban was lifted in November 2013, but individual countries had to open themselves up for inspection by American authorities before they could begin exporting their beef. Ireland was the first to be given the green light, in January this year, and will start to ship its meat in March.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/10/irish-beef-ban-lifted-america-march

    That good news from 2015 was added to just last month:

    “The US Department of Agriculture has awarded the quality shield to Irish beef and granted approval for it to be marketed as a product of Ireland in US shops.

    Bord Bia has welcomed the approval, and said the decision will allow it and its customers to use marketing labels identifying Irish beef on retail shelves.

    The announcement came on the first day of a week-long trade mission to the US led by Minister for Agriculture Michael Creed.

    Under this approval, Irish beef sold in the US from Bord Bia approved plants can carry the USDA quality mark, which guarantees that it has been raised on more than an 80% grass diet; out to pasture for six-eight months a year, on a sustainable, fully traceable family quality-assured farm; and has been raised without the use of growth hormones; and that the use of antibiotics have been treated responsibly.

    The approval is the culmination of three years of engagement with the US Department of Agriculture, and last week’s visit by the USDA to Ireland to audit Bord Bia’s systems as the competent authority in registering and monitoring the Irish exporters who wish to use the claims.

    Meanwhile Wexford company Slaney Foods International based in Bunclody has landed a deal to supply premium specialty Irish Hereford beef to some 200 Lidl stores in the US.

    The Managing Director of Slaney Foods International said the company had started from “humble beginnings” but now would have its grass-fed Irish beef on US shelves as well as in Lidl stores in Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Slovenia, Romania, Cypurs, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic.”

    https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/0620/884040-irish-beef/

  • Damien Mullan

    But then that’s democracy at play too. The UK wanted out. So out they must go. And the benefits that accrued to them, certainly since the inception of the Single Market in the early 1990’s, must go too. Where they go? That’s a matter for those democratic governments sitting around the Council of Ministers table to decide. They, the UK, wanted back control, they wanted out of the single market, out of the customs union. Well these things have a purpose and a meaning, and when you are no longer a member, membership benefits no longer accrue.

  • 05OCT68

    Only if NI has what the UK wants & why aren’t we selling it to the UK now

  • runnymede

    How can you have a more preferential tariff than a zero one? Tricky I think.

    Re. the comfort letter, I think it almost certain that the UK government have quietly promised exactly what I said to car manufacturers ie that the UK will not put tariffs on car parts post Brexit, whatever happens.

    So that’s 2/3 of your post dealt with. As for the final part – yes NTBs can be more important than tariffs. These come in many forms. But with the aerospace and auto industries mostly operating under global standards, there is not a great deal to be concerned about here. The main issue car manufacturers are worried about is the EU’s protectionist 10% tariff on finished cars. Solved with an FTA of course.

    As for the final remark about the ECJ, that’s just a bit of throwaway stuff. There are lots of ways of resolving trade disputes, there will be a new one for UK-EU trade based on a joint panel of some sort. Standard stuff.

  • runnymede

    Very good. Can I then assume Ireland will be pushing the EU to remove its very high tariffs on imported beef then? Presumably there is nothing to worry about.

  • Zeno3

    We are selling a lot but when we leave the EU we will have a price advantage over the ROI because of tariffs.

  • Damien Mullan

    Your contradicting yourself there.

    Why if, as you are insisting, WTO members can’t impose tariffs on others members, would it be necessary to merely inform one of the world’s largest car manufactures of this. It makes no sense.

    It only makes sense if, as the case is between EU members states, who are inherently part of a customs union and single market, which accords one another ‘preferential treatment’, both tariff and non-tariff related preferential treatment.

    As the case with the reopening of European beef exports to the U.S. indicates, the strict requirements of standards required by the U.S. Department of Agricultural and its inspectors, shows the complexity of non-tariff barriers. Ireland put effort and force into reopening that market and has been rewarded for its efforts, by becoming the first EU country to secure re-access to the U.S. market for beef, since the ban on European beef was enforced in 1998. It’s not the EU or lack of a trade deal that currently stops beef exports to the U.S. on the non-tariff barrier side, it’s the lack of accreditation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s inspectors for export of European beef, that is the problem for those countries. They haven’t been as on the ball as Ireland in this respect. That’s as true for the Germans in respect of their export performance outside of the EU too, as compared to the UK’s. The true be told, it’s the UK’s capacity, or lack and quality thereof, its productivity, its quality of educated and technically trained labour force, its a myriad of non-EU UK domestically related problems that hold the UK back.

  • Damien Mullan

    Well you Brexiters where so worried about the lack of action against Chinese steel dumping last year, and its supposed impact on the Port Talbot steel plant, that you made it a central part of the Leave campaign. The matter was raised by both main Leave campaigns, so don’t try and wiggly out of that one. It suited the campaign to talk protectionism then, now your hoisting the laissez faire approach to free trade today. Pull the other one.

  • runnymede

    Don’t put words into my mouth please. I have always supported free trade and am very critical of most anti-dumping exercises which are thinly-veiled protectionism.

    Did you have an answer to my question btw?

  • Skibo

    There will always be that danger of dissidents filling a void.
    Your comment on the Irish passport holders does create an issue. Will us Irish passport holders have to also obtain a British passport?
    I heard on an issue of a woman from the north with an Irish passport and American citizenship living and married in USA.
    She revoked her Irish citizenship and moved home. The fact that she had an Irish passport and not a British passport meant her husband could not join her.

  • Skibo

    Hardly a magic wand. The US has troops stationed in japan since the end of WW2 and in South Korea since the Korean war.
    There are still nearly 40,000 troops in Japan and a further 23,500 in SK. The US will not just be supporting these troops but also a substantial number of native workers.
    That is an industry all of it’s own.
    The support of the US allows both countries to direct more of their finances towards the economy rather than defence.

  • Damien Mullan

    Well Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, and David Davis, were all attached to the official Leave campaign, that along with the Aaron Banks back campaign, both made play in light of Port Talbot of the scope for protectionism post-Brexit. They are the one’s running your beloved Brexit project, so I’m really not that interested in what comes out of your mouth, but rather what comes out of their mouths.

    As for Ireland’s advocacy for free trade, name any other country in the EU that lobbied more intensively for the adoption of the Canadian-EU free trade agreement (CETA). Name any other country in the EU that is presently lobbying as heavily for the adoption of a free trade deal with Japan. And lastly, name a country that is advocating and batting for the UK more strongly among member states of the EU, for the EU to quickly advance towards a free trade deal with the UK. Ireland is the only reliable and dependable friend that the UK has among EU member countries.

    A bit of gratitude wouldn’t go amiss quite frankly. The British land a hot mess on the laps of the Irish, north and south, with Brexit, and its impact on the island of Ireland, and yes annoyed Irish people are, but has that stopped them from sensibly advocating for an EU-UK free trade agreement, provided the terms the British request are reasonable, logical, and consistent with the terms applicable with non-membership of the EU and the benefits thereof.

  • Georgie Best

    Well let’s hope the DUP coalition will oppose Adams’ gamble. That’s what they do, isn’t it?

  • Georgie Best

    I believe that the tradenames for Tyrone Olive Oil and Mourne Citrus are being prepared.

  • 05OCT68

    The big fear for me re: a boarder post the Buncrana road is if persons traveling to Derry are asked “where’s that”. Mc Cann’s correct.

  • Skibo

    Hard to see the DUP opposing a hard brexit. They want out of Europe lock stock and barrel.
    Adams is not gambling on a hard border, he is pointing out the policies proposed by the Tories and the DUP will result in a hard border.

  • Reader

    Skibo: Who stops them or is the UK accepting that they can allow them into the North but restrict them with passport control at ports and airports from access to GB
    No-one stops them. But they can’t get a National Insurance number, use the NHS or schools, or claim benefits. Why bother doing a circuit of Ireland when they could more quickly and cheaply enter GB via Gatwick as a tourist, then submerge?
    Skibo: Such conditions will require tariffs on imports and exports. Where have they said they will not collect this financial stream?
    WTO rules do not require collection of import tariffs. Just about no-one collects export tariffs. You say “income stream” as though that was a good thing – the buyers of the goods – your citizens – pay for this and may resent it. In practice, tariffs are for protectionism, not money making – and that’s why the EU uses them.

  • Skibo

    Oh realy, tariffs don’t have to be collected?
    “A key principle of the WTO is that countries do not discriminate against one another. If the UK does not have a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU, the EU will have to treat the UK in the same way that it treats all other WTO members in that position, such as Russia, the US or Brazil. This means that EU tariffs would have to apply to the UK. It would be WTO-illegal for the EU not to place tariffs on the UK after Brexit if there was no FTA.

    The same is true on the UK side. If it wants to apply any tariffs on any country, these will also have to apply to the EU if there is no deal.”
    The UK is already a member of the WTO. If they are to continue then they must impose the tariffs set by the WTO if there is no agreement to reduce the levels of the tariffs.
    Are the UK going to leave the WTO as well as the EU?

    The whole issue of stopping illegals getting into the country is that they are used by the black economy and are used to drive down wages.
    Their children are entitled to education up to the age of 18 but I believe the government is trying to reduce that to 16.
    The best thing illegal immigrants can do is get the children to apply to live here legally. It is much easier for a child to achieve citizenship than an adult. Once the child has citizenship, the parents can apply to stay legally as their parent.
    There will always be economic migrants. Is that not why the Scots and English came to Ulster and why people from all over the world headed to America and still do.

  • Reader

    Skibo: The UK is already a member of the WTO. If they are to continue then they must impose the tariffs set by the WTO if there is no agreement to reduce the levels of the tariffs.

    This is not supported by the quoted text. The UK does not have to apply tariffs at all. And WTO tariffs are a maximum, not a minimum.

    Skibo: The whole issue of stopping illegals…

    The UK has plenty of illegals anyway. Why should an EU citizen want to join them. Is the situation in the EU27 so bad?

  • Barneyt

    I’d go along with the transitory approach if we are talking about skirting the armagh, monaghan, fermanagh borders, where you simply keep moving ….but not sure that is going to be practical from south wales to kent? A host of complications may arise. Perhaps they can set up zones in England that are considered as EU diplomatic territory. They can trasit the goods to these zones, offload for UK trading or onward movement and equally collect for intra-EU or UK importation back to Ireland……point is…its not straight forward

  • Skibo

    Had I attached the rest of the data sheet, you would have seen that to not impose WTO tariffs at the relevant level could have led problems with other countries objecting.
    “Once the UK has declared its schedules and started trading, other countries in the WTO may object, particularly if they can demonstrate that the UK has in some way reduced the level of market access on offer.

    If there are challenges, these could be lengthy and expensive for the UK to contest. However, the disputes are likely to take several years to resolve, during which time the UK would be able to continue trading off its schedules (whether or not they have been certified). This means that potential disputes are a medium- or long-term challenge to the UK at the WTO, and not an immediate threat to our post-Brexit trading arrangements.”
    I know the UK objected to alot of what the EU did and negotiated special cases for the UK but do you think the WTO will be any easier to work with?

    “The WTO currently has 164 members which between them are responsible for 95% of world trade. It is a negotiating forum for its members to create international trade rules, and an organisation to oversee how they put the rules into practice. For example, WTO agreements place limits on tariffs (which tax imports) and prevent the spread of disease by establishing sanitary standards on agricultural products.”
    The level of internal support of farming is restricted to prevent the flooding of countries with subsidised product. The EU negotiated a higher level and were able to do so with the strength of the combined economy. Will the UK have the same leverage?