Indeed.Originally Posted by Jason H
In the same newsclip I read a piece by Steve Richards explaining why Boris will never become P.M. Seen as too ambitious, too disloyal, duplicitous, wanting it too much etc. I hope he is right on that one even if that analysis could be written about most politicians.
Last edited by Alistair20000; 12 September 2018 at 14:56.
I have to confess to only having skim read the report, and a couple of related meeja articles which of course put their own slant on things... but that seems to suggest that the ERG approach still proposes to introduce border checks and infrastructure, which would directly contravene clause 43 and 49 of the Dec 2017 joint statement (see post #4588/4589 of this thread for details).
Whereas the Dacre Mail would rubbish anything that wasn't "No Deal"?
(And I know he isn't the "Big-Ed" any more, but still sits on his throne on the 16th floor of the Daily Heil's offices overseeing the "vaginas"* labouring beneath him)
*And even his loyalist sycophants used to call his potty-mouthed daily rants "The Vagina Monologues" - I'm sure his loyal readership of (mostly) elderly ladies were never aware of his regular references to their tender parts?
It doesn't, certainly not how I read it anyway.
My bolding added below:
43. The United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union represents a significant and unique challenge in relation to the island of Ireland. The United Kingdom recalls its commitment to protecting the operation of the 1998 Agreement, including its subsequent implementation agreements and arrangements, and to the effective operation of each of the institutionsn and bodies established under them. The United Kingdom also recalls its commitment to the avoidance of a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls.
49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoidng a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutiions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy, and the protection of the 1998 Agreement
The ERG proposal (as noted above, caveat, skim read, etc.) introduces additional checks such as more additional customs declarations, source of origins forms, etc. It also refers to "simplified procedures" for "the majority of cross-border trade" - which goes hand in hand with my conclusion that there must therefore be less-than-simplified procedures for a minority of cross-border trade.
My read is that this does not reconcile with "the avoidance of a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls".
As I said it's a welcome change and it adds to the discussion, but it still doesn't feel like a finished answer that would work in the current state.
Where does the report suggest a hard border?
Well this is getting quite technical. Prepare for a tedious analysis of a legal text with my apologies in advance.
Clause 43 can be read one of two ways. Either
(a) that it defines a hard border as something that includes "a physical infrastructure or related checks and controls", or
(b) that it does not seek to define a hard border, but rather that it instead seeks to include "related checks and controls" into the UK's commitment of things that it will avoid alongside a hard border. You can't just read 49 in isolation; clause 43 is there for a reason (in fact all of this section which is why I originally copied out all of it into my earlier posts.)
Either (a) or (b) leads me to conclude that the UK (namely David Davis, I'll keep saying it) has committed to avoid border checks and controls that might be "related to a physical infrastructure". Perspective and context and personal opinion will naturally shape what you think falls within that definition but the commitment is, in my opinion, clear.
The ERG proposal from today (again, caveat, skim read, etc.) introduces additional checks and controls. At this stage this is not a fully fledged idea so (a) it is debatable to what extent those additional checks and controls "relate to a physical infrastructure" and (b) there is still time (not much) to ensure that they don't, even if you were to decide that they do. The more problematic aspect in my opinion is the statement related to "simplified procedures for the majority of cross-border trade". I am naturally predisposed to zone in on that kind of language and wonder why it is drafted in a way that leaves room for less-than-simplified procedures, how much the "majority" would be (50.0001%? Two thirds? 99.99999?), and in the context of clause 43 and 49, whether or not those less-than-simplified procedures would, or would not, be considered to "checks and controls related to a physical infrastructure".
I also zoned in on Rees-Mogg's choice of words yesterday that they would be releasing a proposal that "any reasonable person could agree to" - call me cynical but this sounded to me like someone who knew what he was trying to get through would be opposed, and trying to frame this in advance so that when the inevitable happened, he could immediately describe it as "unreasonable" having already laid the groundwork in the public perception. Clever politics? Definitely. Helpful in the context of an on-going negotiation? Only if the full detail of the proposal really does meet the hard and fast criteria that Davis signed the UK up to in Dec 2017 - if he / the ERG are trying to pull a fast one and reneg on the Dec 2017 joint statement, I sincerely doubt that will end well.
In sure that if Finland every choose to depart the EU it will be dealt with in a much more efficient manner!
I'll join you Terry, in welcoming a proposal to the issue of the Irish border, which as and in itself, whether feasible or not, is a step forwards.
I'm just going to throw two or three things into the pot, which are not even remotely dealt with;
Sanitary and phytosanitary certificates.
CJEU authority on dispute of equivalence rules.
Part finished goods and associated paperwork.
Yes, the regulatory alignment (even in a small section of goods) is somewhat brushed off by saying "we align now, and will do for the moment". So what happens if and when we no longer align? Given how deadset against alignment they were previously it seems odd they're accepting it now.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks