Based on a comment from @CaptainSwing666 probably worth explaining - no red tape will be slashed and trade with these countries won't be less bureaucratic.
It will be just as bureaucratic as trade with everyone else (cause it has to be).
- tariffs could be removed or lowered on products that still have them
- rules of origin could be simplified (always a plus)
- simpler origin and certification provisions
- wider origin cumulation
/2
- improved and clearer rules on product and country graduation
Here is what won't change:
/3
- goods from these countries will still have to meet rules of origin and GB importers will be liable for any errors on the part of exporters in these countries
- origin will need to be certified
/4
- import formalities (customs and others) will need to be fulfilled incl import customs declarations submitted
- border checks will apply in the same way they apply to other countries
/5
Any changes (in the right direction) would of course have a positive impact on both exporters from developed and least-developed countries as well as on GB supply chains and importers.
6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Instead of the standard "substantial transformation" (a bit vague), NAFTA Marking Rules could be applied to products from Canada and Mexico to determine non-pref origin.
/2
If adopted (currently a proposal) it would prevent dual origin status - something we've seen on occasions.
A similar approach has been applied to all textile products imported from all 3rd countries. So this would the next step in the same direction.
/3
Lord Godson's comment that the integrity of SM and NI's position in the UK's internal market are hard to reconcile is spot on. This is exactly where the difficulty is. That is why this was always going to be a difficult process and why there aren't any easy ways out of this.
/2
It's a shame there isn't a bit more transparency around this process. Lewis mentioned a number of UK proposals that the EU did not engage with.
Did you not have any conversations about how it would look in practice? What facilitating trade means and what cheks can be simplified?
Why not?
/2
The requirement to treat the movement of goods into Northern Ireland as if they were crossing the EU external border is implied in the Protocol and results from applying customs legislation to NI and placing the border in the Irish Sea.
/3
Every single proposal for an “invisible” NI border has the same problem. Every single time smn tries to rethink border formalities and eliminate the dreaded customs “checks” they fall into the same 3⃣ pitfalls.
Typical mistake – thinking that removing checks “solves” the border. It doesn’t. Checks are rarely the problem. They are a small part of work and costs for traders.
/2
2⃣ Not removing checks just shifting them to a different time / place
The need for checks and verification stays. Especially when proposals suggest making non-compliance a criminal offence – that requires enforcement, which requires checks.
/3
The only thing I would add is that I think that “defending the integrity of SM” at the end of the day wasn’t about the details- checks and formalities. It's a concept.
The EU was/is after the one thing that the UK does not want to provide – reassurance and certainty.