1/ You will all be shocked to hear I find this report deeply unconvincing.
It correctly assesses the threat of delays at the border to smooth trade, but presents three reasons why these fears are "exaggerated"
1. Legal
2. Economic
3. Practical
Let's consider them one by one.
It correctly assesses the threat of delays at the border to smooth trade, but presents three reasons why these fears are "exaggerated"
1. Legal
2. Economic
3. Practical
Let's consider them one by one.
2/ First, legal.
The report points to an Economists for Free Trade report to support its claim 'new non tariff barriers would be illegal.'
Let's leave the wisdom of relying on E4FT aside for a minute and focus on the substance.
It's pure misdirection.
The report points to an Economists for Free Trade report to support its claim 'new non tariff barriers would be illegal.'
Let's leave the wisdom of relying on E4FT aside for a minute and focus on the substance.
It's pure misdirection.
3/ It would indeed be illegal for the EU to introduce new, arbitrary requirements or bans targeting UK products in a discriminatory way. That's not the issue.
Issue is the EU requiring UK goods prove they meet EXISTING requirements in ways they didn't have to before.
Issue is the EU requiring UK goods prove they meet EXISTING requirements in ways they didn't have to before.
4/ There is an interesting WTO case to be made on the legality of no longer accepting UK certifications which were fine on March 28th. @Lorand_Bartels is there expert there.
However, the EU clearly believes it has the right, maybe even obligation and a case takes years to win.
However, the EU clearly believes it has the right, maybe even obligation and a case takes years to win.
5/ Second, Economic.
The IEA makes two arguments here. First, that it's in no one's economic interest to disrupt trade.
True, but apparently having every economist in the country not named 'Minford' tell you something makes no economic sense doesn't prevent it happening, so...
The IEA makes two arguments here. First, that it's in no one's economic interest to disrupt trade.
True, but apparently having every economist in the country not named 'Minford' tell you something makes no economic sense doesn't prevent it happening, so...
6/ For the second argument, the IEA quote selectively and out of context this BBC article and testimony to the Treasury Committee from Benoit Rochet, the Deputy CEO, Port of Calais.
bbc.com/news/uk-politi…
bbc.com/news/uk-politi…
7/ Let's deal with the BBC Article first.
In it, the French say they don't envision closing the Port of Calais.
This must have come as a huge relief to the 0% of people who thought that was concern.
They also say they'll try to minimize delays. Great. Me too.
In it, the French say they don't envision closing the Port of Calais.
This must have come as a huge relief to the 0% of people who thought that was concern.
They also say they'll try to minimize delays. Great. Me too.
8/ The testimony of the Deputy CEO of Calais is more interesting.
The IEA write: "...suggested that as few as 1% of UK lorries would be subject to a physical check."
What Mr Rochet actually said is below. See if you can see the part IEA seem to have ran out of ink to share.
The IEA write: "...suggested that as few as 1% of UK lorries would be subject to a physical check."
What Mr Rochet actually said is below. See if you can see the part IEA seem to have ran out of ink to share.
9/ Did you spot it?
Vet checks. Anything with meat, fish, livestock or produce. They literally don't even have a system yet.
His testimony IN NO WAY means only 1% of loads will face delays for veterinary checks or to prove compliance with other regulations.
Vet checks. Anything with meat, fish, livestock or produce. They literally don't even have a system yet.
His testimony IN NO WAY means only 1% of loads will face delays for veterinary checks or to prove compliance with other regulations.
10/ Third, Practical.
Masterful debate jiu-jitsu.
Because neither side has the officials or physical infrastructure to properly implement checks, there won't be any.
Sure. Just like how Border Force lets you just skip past them at Heathrow if they're understaffed.
Masterful debate jiu-jitsu.
Because neither side has the officials or physical infrastructure to properly implement checks, there won't be any.
Sure. Just like how Border Force lets you just skip past them at Heathrow if they're understaffed.
11/ The IEA does make a salient argument, that some of the chaos in a no-deal scenario could be mitigated through reciprocal deals and arrangements.
To some extent that's true, but those deals actually need to exist and the government which is assuming a WA isn't making them.
To some extent that's true, but those deals actually need to exist and the government which is assuming a WA isn't making them.
