This is why we shouldn't rush things...

[BeElBeeBub]

Do you mean like when the EU Paid Ford to relocate out of Southampton?

Didn't happen.



Ford Southampton was the victim of a decade long Ford restructure, one of a dozen Ford sites closed worldwide, including some in Europe



The original plan was to keep Southampton open by shifting it to producing chassis vans  whilst the production of the new model of panel van went to Turkey.



The £80m Turkey loan to help prepare the plant for production of panel vans was part of the package of loans and assistance to keep Ford Europe (including Southampton) afloat was  



Ford Southampton benefited from the £450m loan from the EIB which enabled it to continue operating for 3 more years beyond it's original closure date.

Or every time the French or Germans illegally undercut the City of London and the EU court decides in their favour even though they are breaking EU rules.

let's have some examples of "Germany undercutting the City".  That narrative doesn't really fit with London being the European finance leader does it?  Nor the fact that it has the lightest touch regulation of all the European states.  If anything it was they who complained about London undercutting them and the ECJ defended London.  



The ECB set regulations around Euro clearing that would have prevented it from occurring in an non Euro using member state.  The UK successfully overturned that regulation via the ECJ.  Of course now we are no longer a member those regulation can now apply and the multi trillion E bi

Sounds a really fair partnership doesn't it?

So if you think the French and Germans etc are so aggressive at stealing businesses away from the UK even when there are limits on their behaviour....what do you think they will do with no limits?

[Nick]

our word.



We could, as you say, just ignore the treaty we just signed up to.  Rip it up and toss it on the bin.



Of course doing that makes it very much harder to get other countries to abide by their agreement with us.



Why should the US, Austaralia or Japan sign treaties with the UK when the UK will just ignore orcs obligations when it wants to.





Because if you are about to give someone low friction access to your markets you want to make sure they won't use things like state subsidies to unfairly advantage your industries.



It cuts both ways.  LPF would protect the UK. It would prevent the EU states using excessive or unfair  "sweetners" to attract businesses away from the UK.



Take Sunderland. It's future is now dependent on the decisions taken by Renault.  The 15% state owned car maker who has just promised to increase French production in exchange for a loan from the French gov.  



Without LPF, the French gov can offer outright and explicit inducements to move production.  They can simply say "here's a billion to close Sunderland and move production here". Of course, the UK can offer 2bn to stay, then Renault can ask France for 3bn and so on.



We get into a taxpayer funded bidding war with companies playing countries off against each other for ever bigger sweeteners.



Have a.look what happens in the US, where there are no LPF arrangements between states.  Foxcon, Amazon etc all get billions in state subsidies to meet up factories.



With LPF the MS are constrained in what they can offer which ends up a better deal for all.

Do you mean like when the EU Paid Ford to relocate out of Southampton? Or every time the French or Germans illegally undercut the City of London and the EU court decides in their favour even though they are breaking EU rules. Sounds a really fair partnership doesn't it?

[Baff]

Why do you believe all goods entering into NI are going to be deemed "at risk" of being sold in the EU?

You have just described how the tools in your van are an example of goods not at risk of being sold in the EU.



You seem to be hoping that the government uses the most unreasonable standard of interpretaion possible.

I doubt very much that they will.





You won't need paperwork for the tools in your van.

You will only need paperwork for exports to the EU and for agricultural produce. Animals and the like.

No documentation is required for taking non agricultural UK goods into NI that are destined for NI markets.

The government has released documentation that explicitly addresses this an you have been linked to it, earlier in the thread.





The original suggestion of the EU was for the entire UK to stay in the EU bubble.

The Irish Backstop, where just NI would stay in that bubble instead, was the compromise offer Mrs May made to address the same concern.

Again, this is well documented.





We've reached the point in this discussion where our disagreeements are clear and that we are only repeating ouselves.

So I'm going to respectfully thank you for sharing your opinion with me and taking the time to engage with mine.

Nice one.

[BeElBeeBub]

Yeah goods "at risk" of being transported across the border into the EU.

Not goods at rixk of being sold in NI. And the WA is quite explicit about this.

Art 1: no tariffs will be due on goods from GB to NI unless they are deemed "at risk" (of moving on to the EU)



Art 2: *all* goods are deemed at risk unless declared otherwise by the JC.



So art 2 makes all goods at risk unless excluded and art 1 says all at risk goods are subject to tariffs



I don't blame you for not getting this. It is deliberately drafted to be obscure so that the UK government could spin it.

If you export to SI, you have to register your trade online.

Spot checks will ne made at the ports in NI, not on the border.

To move goods between GB and NI will require extra paperwork (which may be online, but they are still forms that need filling) from now and may require the payment of tariffs.



Checks on the paperwork will probably occur at the NI ports as will some physical inspections. Theoretically they could occur in GB as you board.



You have just described a border between GB and NI.

No.

The backstop is what Mrs May negotiatied as a counter to the EU;s suggestion that the entire UK remains in the EU customs union.

It was to leave NI in the EU customs union and have a customs border with Britain in the Irish sea.



Boris Johnson dropped the backstop.

NI remains in the UK customs union and single market.

It leaves the EU customs union and single market on the same day the rest of us do.



As agreed in the WA.

That is wrong



The original EU suggestion was for NI to stay in a "bubble" where the EU customs union and most (but not all) of the single market rules applied.



The point that not all the single market rules applied was important. Only the goods pillar applied, the labour, capital and services pillars didn't.



This required a border in the Irish sea where goods flowing from GB to NI would need to pay tariffs etc.



The May solution extended the "bubble" around the entire UK. This meant there was no border between NI and RoI but also no border between GB and France etc.



The EU was reluctant to allow this as it saw it as "cherry picking" by allowing the UK to have freedom of goods but not labour, capital or services.



It must have been galling for May to see the agreement she managed to wrangle from the EU (credit where credit is due) be chucked aside by the hard brexiters who didn't understand what they were throwing away.



Johnson chucked all that away and went back to a bubble around NI. It was worded in a convoluted way. NI does indeed stay in the UK customs union and single market, but the UK customs union and single market now have a corner that adheres to a subset of EU rules (all listed in annexes 1-7 of the WA). This was deliberately done to make it easier for Johnson to sell his deal to his supporters by bamboozling then to think it was something it wasn't.  It clearly worked.



But the fact of the matter is that there will now be a customs border between NI and GB in the Irish sea.

[Baff]

The Irish Protocol is on page 292 of the Withdrawal Agreement.



That protocol says the UK will apply EU tariffs to all goods moving from GB to NI that are deemed "at risk". It also says that all goods are deemed "at risk" unless the joint UK/EU committee decide that aren't.

Yeah goods "at risk" of being transported across the border into the EU.

Not goods at rixk of being sold in NI. And the WA is quite explicit about this.



If you export to SI, you have to register your trade online.

Spot checks will ne made at the ports in NI, not on the border.









No.

The backstop is what Mrs May negotiatied as a counter to the EU;s suggestion that the entire UK remains in the EU customs union.

It was to leave NI in the EU customs union and have a customs border with Britain in the Irish sea.



Boris Johnson dropped the backstop.

NI remains in the UK customs union and single market.

It leaves the EU customs union and single market on the same day the rest of us do.



As agreed in the WA.









I'll add some personal conjecture here.

I suggest..



The EU's objective was to keep us in the EU.

An objective that has failed.



They aimed to make the price of us leaving so high we would baulk at it and reverse our decision to leave.

Hence project fear.



But it didn't work.



Project confidence kicked project fears arse. And we are out.

[Javert]

It is a fantastic triumph of spin to paint agreeing to the other party's original proposal and chucking away the concessions you have squeezed from them as a win.

^^ This.

[BeElBeeBub]

There is no border in the Irish Sea mentioned in the WA.

And not in the politcal declaration either.

The Irish Protocol is on page 292 of the Withdrawal Agreement.



That protocol says the UK will apply EU tariffs to all goods moving from GB to NI that are deemed "at risk". It also says that all goods are deemed "at risk" unless the joint UK/EU committee decide that aren't.

The problem here is not that the treaty isn't binding, it is that what you think is bound by that treaty is incorrect.

The treaty was ammended by Boris Johnson to remove those things (the backstop) you mention, before being ratified.

No the treaty included those elements above and Boris Johnson claimed that he had got rid of the "backstop", when all he did was remove the "all UK" comment of it.  



He aimed his tough stance had caused the EU to buckle but it was his binning of the "no border in the Irish sea" principle that allowed the deal.



What he signed up to was very close to the EU's original proposal.



It is a fantastic triumph of spin to paint agreeing to the other party's original proposal and chucking away the concessions you have squeezed from them as a win.

[BeElBeeBub]

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.



There is no trade stuff, it has yet to be discussed. And you seem to be confusing the WA with the Backstop. The WA is simply a set of measures - or terms I should say -that we have agreed to before we have finalised our departure (withdrawal). No deal Brexiter means the WA is over because that is what the Withdrawal agreement is. And building up a border between Ireland is about as legally enforceable as the EU giving the UK a trade agreement.

You are incorrect.



We have left the EU, the WA defined the terms in which we did so.



For example our current access to the single market (no tariffs, minimal paperwork etc) is due to the terms of the WA.



Those terms are (as per the agreement) set to expire at the end if this year (unless extended by the end if this month).



The IP is also part of that WA and those terms do not have an expiration date.  The only 2 ways in which those terms no longer apply are if the UK/EU agree a new treaty to replace them or if the art18 process is used.



Under the terms of the WA, the UK is obliged to carry out checks and collect tariffs on goods entering NI from GB as if they were entering the EU.



This will mean there is a customs border in the Irish sea.



I don't see why you are struggling to grasp this particularly as the government have already admitted it.

[Baff]

That's cool. So the EU are forced to give us a trade deal then?  :dncg:

They are forced to offer us a mutually beneficial trade deal, negotiated on good faith.

Not to do so breaches the WA.



And at which point Boris is legally able to withhold payments agreed in it.



However they are not forced to agree to any trade deal offered and neither are we.

[Baff]

The entire WA is binding, the IP is binding, the only way it ends is via the art 18 process for NI deciding not to continue with alignment.  That cannot happen until 2022 at the earliest.



A treaty that is non-binding isn't a treaty.



The only prospect for a border in the Irish sea not occuring as per the WA in Jan 2021 is if the UKg

 & EU agree an extension of the transition or a trade agreement *beyond* what the PD envisages.

There is no border in the Irish Sea mentioned in the WA.

And not in the politcal declaration either.



The problem here is not that the treaty isn't binding, it is that what you think is bound by that treaty is incorrect.

The treaty was ammended by Boris Johnson to remove those things (the backstop) you mention, before being ratified.

[B0ycey]

Which part of the WA says that?



All the trade deal stuff is in the non-binding PD

Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.



There is no trade stuff, it has yet to be discussed. And you seem to be confusing the WA with the Backstop. The WA is simply a set of measures - or terms I should say -that we have agreed to before we have finalised our departure (withdrawal). No deal Brexiter means the WA is over because that is what the Withdrawal agreement is. And building up a border between Ireland is about as legally enforceable as the EU giving the UK a trade agreement.

[BeElBeeBub]

That's cool. So the EU are forced to give us a trade deal then?  :dncg:

Which part of the WA says that?



All the trade deal stuff is in the non-binding PD

[BeElBeeBub]

All of which as a sovereign nation we can turn round and put an end to it when ever we like.

There is nothing stopping us walking away, so which bits and what makes it binding?

our word.



We could, as you say, just ignore the treaty we just signed up to.  Rip it up and toss it on the bin.



Of course doing that makes it very much harder to get other countries to abide by their agreement with us.



Why should the US, Austaralia or Japan sign treaties with the UK when the UK will just ignore orcs obligations when it wants to.

We could and should have simply unpicked every part of EU legislation from our laws and just walked away. All the WA gives us is a a legally operative solution that avoids a hard border on the island of Ireland, this is not legally binding.



I'll ask you this as Gerry side stepped it. If the EU is so fantastic why do they want the UK to sign up to a level playing field agreement?

Because if you are about to give someone low friction access to your markets you want to make sure they won't use things like state subsidies to unfairly advantage your industries.



It cuts both ways.  LPF would protect the UK. It would prevent the EU states using excessive or unfair  "sweetners" to attract businesses away from the UK.



Take Sunderland. It's future is now dependent on the decisions taken by Renault.  The 15% state owned car maker who has just promised to increase French production in exchange for a loan from the French gov.  



Without LPF, the French gov can offer outright and explicit inducements to move production.  They can simply say "here's a billion to close Sunderland and move production here". Of course, the UK can offer 2bn to stay, then Renault can ask France for 3bn and so on.



We get into a taxpayer funded bidding war with companies playing countries off against each other for ever bigger sweeteners.



Have a.look what happens in the US, where there are no LPF arrangements between states.  Foxcon, Amazon etc all get billions in state subsidies to meet up factories.



With LPF the MS are constrained in what they can offer which ends up a better deal for all.

[B0ycey]

The entire WA is binding,

That's cool. So the EU are forced to give us a trade deal then?  :dncg:

[Nick]

We have already withdrawn, we are no longer an EU member and the WA now applies hence the current transition period.



The transition period provisions contained in the WA are set to lapse at the end of 2020 unless extended as per the WA procedures.



The IP provisions do not lapse with the transition period provisions and continue until the art 18 process is used or the UK & EU agree a new treaty that supercedes the WA.

All of which as a sovereign nation we can turn round and put an end to it when ever we like.

There is nothing stopping us walking away, so which bits and what makes it binding?



We could and should have simply unpicked every part of EU legislation from our laws and just walked away. All the WA gives us is a a legally operative solution that avoids a hard border on the island of Ireland, this is not legally binding.



I'll ask you this as Gerry side stepped it. If the EU is so fantastic why do they want the UK to sign up to a level playing field agreement?