,
30 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
At @CommonsNIAC Brexit inquiry today: Dr Etain Tannam, Associate Prof of International Peace Studies, TCD, Colin Murray, Reader in Public Law, Newcastle Uni, David Henig, Director of the UK Trade Policy Project, Co-Founder of the UK Trade Forum
First up Mr Henig: Can you 'solve' the border with tech? Maybe, if you have 10 years. The border is the place where the transport, goods & paperwork are all reliably in one place. If you want to deal with all that away from the border you will need a very strong set of systems/
'I don't doubt it can be done, which puts me at odds with quite a lot of customs experts - but it will take a long time.'
Not just about the tech - which is unproven - it's about shared processes, trust, legal frameworks, These things take a lot of time.
Who is going to put a border up if no deal? Pressure would build from EU side in particular for something to be put in place - but don't know what this something would be.
Amazingly Mr Henig is being asked for a description of the Nor/Swe border - surely every member of the NIAC knows the score by this stage?
Back to the 10 year timeframe - why so long. A trade deal analogy is used - a trade deal can be written in a morning but for both sides to agree and trust takes time, the action of the law takes time.
Mr Murray comes in on the issue of regulatory alignment - he says the evidence of Karlsson and Massen has 'scant mention' of regulation: 'the solutions you have been presented with do not deal with the complexity of 21st century trade - so much of that lies in non-tariff barriers
We're now onto import & export of blood products, a very heavily regulated trade. Some members are incredulous that blood products would be subject to controls in an emergency or that there would be significant divergence in this area.
Dr Tannam describes some ways in which the border exists in reality at the moment (currency etc) but that doesn't mean it will be fine to reinforce or add to those differences
Mr Henig says trade negotiations tend to emphasise what countries disagree on - something to be improved in the next phase of Brexit is to matter manage these disagreements
Gregory Campbell asks his usual questions about what a hard border would look like & expresses his scepticism that such a border could have been implemented
Mr Henig suggests you could maybe have designated crossing points for goods (which was sort of what the Fujitsu stuff also suggested)
Mr Murray reminds us this 'approved routes' sysytem did exist before the SM came into place
Up until 1970s you needed a licence to use a vehicle on an unapproved route - generally granted to doctors, vets and clergy.
Mr Henig reminds us of the border controls that the EU imposes on other third countries & it's not enough for the UK to say 'we are so special they have to do something different' it has to be a collaborative process.
Gregory Campbell delivers a paean to the ingenuity of the Irish smuggler; there would be no point in border infrastructure because 'people will circumvent it with ease as they did for 100 years'
Kate Hoey wants to know if any of the witnesses' institutions get EU money. Mr Henig - no, Dr Tannan - two of her colleagues have recently got Horizon 2020 grants, Mr Murray 'there isn't a research intensive university in the UK that isn't in receipt of EU funding'
Did Mr Henig see Reg Empey's recent letter in the Newsletter? No, he had not.
Dr Tannam expresses some scepticism about the arguments underpinning David Trimble legal action.
Mr Murray talks about the issue of border 'goodwill' - ain't enough; if you take away law that underpins it you need to replace it with law - the WA makes 'a relatively good fist of achieving this'
He also talks a bit about the consent principle in the Trimble argument - references the Miller SC case. All three witnesses more or less agree that the WA is scanty on consultation mechanisms for NI.
Jim Shannon suggests SPS rules shouldn't be an issue as 'the regulations will be the same' after Brexit. Will they, tho? asks Mr Henig, what if we're doing a deal with the US?
Tusk 'special place in hell' comments? Mr Henig says 'ill advised' - the others agree though Dr Tannam suggests it wasn't intended to be taken literally.
Malthouse? - Henig - 'unconvincing' and the 'Better Deal' which underpins says there would have to SPS checks at or near the border.
Murray - Malthouse is essentially a maxfac repackaging.
Maria Caulfield asks the 'was Enda nicer to us?' question. Dr Tannam is sceptical.
Lady Sylvia asks about Mr Henig smuggling risks: a lot will depend on what the UK chooses to do (in a no deal situation) on tariffs and regulations - that could create the incentive for organised crime.
Henig asked about backstop as 'best of both worlds' - he's 'unconvinced' because of 'uncerrtainty factor' - (both UK & EU says they only ever want the backstop to be temporary) John Grogan jokingly suggests he may campaign for Yorkshire to joing the backstop on a 50yr duration
fin// (a robust session in places with the chair having to ask for courtesy to be shown to the witnesses)
