As the Guardian reported last night:
Under the Chequers deal there would be a “free trade area for goods”, under which the UK would in effect retain existing regulatory and customs arrangements by becoming a rule-taker.
In order to avoid border checks, Britain is also seeking a “facilitated customs arrangement”. The UK could control its own tariffs to allow it to pursue an independent trade policy, but its customs officials would collect and pass on the higher EU tariff to Brussels for goods passing through the UK en route to the continent
The EU is not amused, as the Guardian also noted:
Barnier said of the UK's customs proposals: “We cannot relinquish control of our external borders and the revenue there to a third country — that's not legal.
“By the way, infringement proceedings against London are ongoing because, according to the commission, Chinese textile imports have not been properly cleared.
“Moreover, the British proposal is not practical. It is impossible to tell exactly where a product ends up, on the UK market or in the internal market. For example, sugar is transported by the tonne in 25-kilo sacks, so you cannot trace every sack to its destination. That would only be possible with insane and unjustifiable bureaucracy. Therefore, the British proposal would be an invitation to fraud if implemented.”
And he is right. But it's worse than that. Not only is it an invitation to fraud, but as I have noted in an FoI I published this morning, the UK admits it has no Customs officers in ports to monitor these issues at its ports, at all. Of course no one is going to take any suggestion we take seriously when we literally have no arrangments in hand to check current flows through the UK. The EU would be quite literally mad to do so.
The UK may say it's the Chequers deal or bust, but candidly it's bust in that case. That deal was never even near worth considering in reality. And the question has to be asked, why are Tory politicians so daft that they could ever have thought it plausible when it so patently was not?
To argue that people in this country are not entitled to a second opinion on this issue when those supposedly leading the country are managing negotiations so badly is the biggest affront to democracy there is. And that fact that this is also denied by Downing Street is probably all the proof that is needed to suggest that those saying so are right.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Has the House of Commons had such a lack of quality intellect since the Second World War?
Boris Johnson has demonstrated yet again his priority is his career-not the real national interest.
Aaah – yes indeed – the future is now coming together.
So, it could be that we now know what the Government’s position is. We are effectively arbitraging the costs of the international flow of goods are we not? Exporters and importers will be attracted by our lack of interest in what goes in and out. Meanwhile our people whose needs are not met exclusively by Africa of the States may suffer inflation of common goods from the EU (but HMG thinks if more illegal African ivory comes through Britain on the way to China – great! That is a successful policy!).
No wonder Barnier rejects this. I get the feeling that the UK is selling itself as the cheap crossroads for international trade. This will also impact on the EU – it is a threat. But this is typical Neu-British Toryism: open the flood gates, let the rules flow out and let the strongest take control and dominate. It makes me sick.
What is more worrying then is that this means that a no deal or hard BREXIT is more likely. That is very depressing – especially considering the possible reasoning. All for what? Typical behavior of a tax haven state I’d say.
Classic tactics from the Tory Party – and Brexit is a mere continuation of an age old tendency. Under such a vision, It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another.
The ability to reason is very poor in Westminster as we’ve seen recently in the debate over Labour’s time frame defined balancing of the government’s books. The primary reason for countries engaging in bilateral and multilateral trading agreements is to mitigate the temptation to engage in rigging price signals and this obviously includes not rigging your currency. The remit of the WTO does not extend to doing anything about the latter. Westminster politicians should know both these things and yet they tell the electorate or imply if push comes to shove the UK can maintain the current level of output and even improve on it solely through use of WTO rules!
It is possible to think the intellect of our current parliament increases when they are all asleep. In the electronic age they plan to revamp the now obsolete buildings rather than decentralise and give us electronic participation. The second vote isn’t coming because it would be a vote on incompetence.
The cabinet is divided between those who may still believe-only a little bit- that the UK is so essential to the EU that Barnier will yield ground, and those for whom Brexit is a means to an end for their own political careers and bank statements…or rather off-shore bank accounts and deals.
Arrogance, entitlement, blind ambition.
Three ingredients making up this cabinet, the main ingredient I keep for the end, it binds them all, incompetence.
Does anyone wonder why Scots would like to get out of this corrupt union ?
The Scots would be well shot of Westminster and its parasitic exceptionalism. The Brexit referendum should have required unanimous direction from the constituent nations; two out of four is no consensus to proceed with anything. If Brexit goes ahead, the end of the union is inevitable and deservedly so.
“If Brexit goes ahead, the end of the union is inevitable and deservedly so.”
I’m not unhappy with that…but I regret the way it will have been achieved and the damage done in the process.
It will give me no pleasure to see South Britain laid low, but it’s what I’m expecting to be seeing unless there is some major change in government thinking (I use the term loosely). 🙁
“That would only be possible with insane and unjustifiable bureaucracy”
The EU decrying bureaucracy – what world am I living in?! They normally love rules and bureaucracy as more bureaucracy means a bigger budget and a bigger gravy-train.
I find such comments deeply 7nhelpful because they are based on pure prejudice