Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

A German (say) would need a visa just to spend a holiday or attend a business meeting in the UK? Is it being suggested that this becomes the default, by law, on Nov 1st in the event of no-deal? I thought 'assurances' had been given already.

If the Withdrawal Agreement isn't passed then there is no agreement on EU citizens rights. As it stands, there is no UK legislation that has been passed to do anything AFAIK.

There are also 2 groups of people to consider. 1 EU citizens already resident in the UK, EU citizens not resident in the UK. I believe assurances have been given on the former (but no legislation passed) but nothing on the latter. Which may be an issue, but probably isn't, because there is no way to differentiate the two anyway. There is no system in place to determine if an EU citizen is resident in the UK or not.

Further complications may arise from the fact that in the event of no deal it appears to be down to each EU member state to negotiate their arrangement for UK citizens and thus presumably the reciprocal arrangement for their citizens in the UK.

Of course, the UK could decide to allow visa free travel for all EU citizens from Nov 1. But they would have to pass legislation to make that happen. And it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I don't think having officials working longer hours necessarily increases the overall capacity. There is limited space to park vehicles, a limited number of weighbridges and inspection facilities and so on.

As I understand it, there is a shortage of infrastructure as well as a shortage of skilled staff. There's also a law of diminishing returns if staff have to work longer hours. Per hour productivity drops and typically there will be higher levels of absence.

There are also working time directives in place that limit the amount of extra hours people can work and I suspect OT is voluntary, not mandatory...

...plus it wouldn't surprise me if customs officials are already working significant overtime given cuts in the Civil Service...

"Work harder / longer" is a naive proposition for dealing with this.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think good faith should not be a requirement for negotiation, that is what the lawyers are for..

The EU can absolutely make clear that they will not sign a deal that produces a hard border. But that should be part of the negotiation. The problem is that the EU is insisting on agreeing the outcome and that they define the outcome before the negotiations have begun. Even the negotiation on an arbitration process over the backstop cannot be entered into until the backstop is signed unto.

The backstop is causing what it is intended to prevent. To use a bad analogy since others like them it would be a bit like Boeing insisting that because the MCAS was intended to prevent crashes then it will remain in place as is.

The EU did make clear they wouldn't sign a deal that produces a hard border so the UK suggested the backstop.

What is causing the issue is that the UK appears to be insisting on mutually incompatible things - to be out of the customs union and free movement area but to continue to act as if they are in it with respect to Ireland.

If these things are not mutually incompatible then it is up to the UK to show how that is the case, and until then they have to choose one or the other. From a practical point of view remaining in the customs union and free movement area makes more sense. One the UK have a solution to propose then the EU will consider it. You cannot force the EU to accept a solution a priori.

And of course the UK can leave the backstop. It merely means reverting to third country status on all aspects of dealing with the EU. And a hard border in Ireland. How would the EU stop it?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

There are also working time directives in place that limit the amount of extra hours people can work.

Not on Nov 1st

 

[Planigale]

Regarding the highlighted bit, how do you know this? Because noone in the Brexit camp seems to know exactly what they want.
If a Norway style deal is made, which was mentioned by a several leading brexiteers, that would mean exactly the same.

Besides, while it is an interesting tactic to keep coming up with 'but if the EU were to suddenly do X", none of those doom scenarios are in any way likely, nor is there any known interest in the EU to keeping the UK shackled.
The only reason the backstop was needed was because the UK was unable to determine what it wanted in the first place.

As mentioned, in these negotiations its the UK that is the unreliable negotiator, not the EU.

But a Norway style deal would not meet the Backstop requirements. Whilst the exact shape of the post Brexit relationship was not defined by Brexiteers, there was a fairly consistent case made around borders, trade agreements with non EU countries, parliamentary sovereignty, escaping from EU regulations and the ECJ. The backstop puts a block on all of these intents.

If we cannot remain in the EU which I voted for then I would prefer a close relationship with the EU. However well intentioned the consequences of the backstop are profoundly undemocratic and likely to precipitate exactly what it was intended to prevent.

Previous votes in parliament have suggested that the May deal (which as has been said means a continuation as is with an open Border with Ireland), would be voted through if decoupled from the backstop.

Two years down the line there may be a new government. Possibly another referendum

The backstop was not needed when the UK was part of the EU, even though there is nothing to prevent border infrastructure and passport checks being introduced on the Irish border under EU law. Even within the Schengen area there are identity checks at the border.

 

[GlennB]

There are also working time directives in place that limit the amount of extra hours people can work and I suspect OT is voluntary, not mandatory...

...plus it wouldn't surprise me if customs officials are already working significant overtime given cuts in the Civil Service...

"Work harder / longer" is a naive proposition for dealing with this.

That's an EU directive and, iirc, UK workers can opt-out except in certain areas (drivers etc)

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Sure, but weighbridges and inspection facilities don't currently operate 24/7 at full capacity, do they?

Longer workhours is how you utilise the limiting factors in infrastructure a bit more. Plus adding new weighbridges and inspection facilities can be done much more quickly than adding a whole new cadre of qualified, competent inspection officials. New infrastructure could be done between now and Brexit day in fact. It wouldn't look pretty and it would cost more of course, but it can be done. A weightbridge isn't exactly an aircraft carrier.



Of course, that's why the upper limit for this solution is about three months. That's an estimate, it could function a bit longer or it could collapse sooner than three months. There would be a progression from very effective in the first couple of weeks to only marginally effective in the last month or something of that nature.
You'll notice I only added half of the extra worked hours to the output - in other words I assumed the customs officials would be only 50% as effective, on average, as they are during regular hours. Even so that should be sufficient to stave off food riots and ensure all necessary pharmaceuticals are available.

Note, I didn't say that solves the problem of trade. I'm saying it staves off riots from food and medical shortages for three months.

McHrozni

Have you ever worked in the public sector? Rules around procurement mean you won't even have let a contract to setup a new weighbridge etc by end October (it would take 3-6 months) let alone have built the thing.

 

[Planigale]

The EU did make clear they wouldn't sign a deal that produces a hard border so the UK suggested the backstop.

What is causing the issue is that the UK appears to be insisting on mutually incompatible things - to be out of the customs union and free movement area but to continue to act as if they are in it with respect to Ireland.

If these things are not mutually incompatible then it is up to the UK to show how that is the case, and until then they have to choose one or the other. From a practical point of view remaining in the customs union and free movement area makes more sense. One the UK have a solution to propose then the EU will consider it. You cannot force the EU to accept a solution a priori.

Yes this would be part of the negotiation process.

And of course the UK can leave the backstop. It merely means reverting to third country status on all aspects of dealing with the EU. And a hard border in Ireland. How would the EU stop it?

The EU would bring a case against the UK in the ECJ and get any such legislation declared illegal. Then there would be a tricky issue of whether people believed parliament had the authority to act contrary to the court ruling

 

[Planigale]

Have you ever worked in the public sector? Rules around procurement mean you won't even have let a contract to setup a new weighbridge etc by end October (it would take 3-6 months) let alone have built the thing.

I think the procurement rules are EU based to ensure equal access to contracts across the EU bids have to be published in the European Journal? So post Brexit may not apply.

 

[The Don]

There are also working time directives in place that limit the amount of extra hours people can work and I suspect OT is voluntary, not mandatory...

...plus it wouldn't surprise me if customs officials are already working significant overtime given cuts in the Civil Service...

"Work harder / longer" is a naive proposition for dealing with this.

Not once the UK leaves the EU - any and all employee protections can go out of the window.....

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Not on Nov 1st

True, but Unions are likely to want something similar and members are unlikely to want to work longer than those guidelines, especially to help out a Govt they have been in dispute with relatively recently.

Quite simply, the workers will work the extra overtime that suits them ie if they want the extra money ready for Christmas, not the Govt and, once they feel they have got the money they want then their time will become more precious.

Also, in my experience, any sustained and 'guaranteed' overtime just leads to people spreading their usual productivity over the longer period. OT is useful in short bursts to achieve a specific and pretty immediate goal. More than a few weeks and productivity is not appreciably increased...though costs are.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But a Norway style deal would not meet the Backstop requirements. Whilst the exact shape of the post Brexit relationship was not defined by Brexiteers, there was a fairly consistent case made around borders, trade agreements with non EU countries, parliamentary sovereignty, escaping from EU regulations and the ECJ. The backstop puts a block on all of these intents.

In what way would Norway style not meet the backstop requirements? In a Norway deal there wouldn't be a need for a backstop.

There was no consistent case made for anything im afraid.

If we cannot remain in the EU which I voted for then I would prefer a close relationship with the EU. However well intentioned the consequences of the backstop are profoundly undemocratic and likely to precipitate exactly what it was intended to prevent.

They are not undemocratic if they are agreed to by elected governments. They are certainly not as good as being in the EU. But nothing is. They are better than the other alternative of dropping out of everything on Oct 31 and causing chaos. If there is a better solution of course feel free to come up with one and propose it. But merely consistently poo-pooing the only alternative offered isn't helpful.

Previous votes in parliament have suggested that the May deal (which as has been said means a continuation as is with an open Border with Ireland), would be voted through if decoupled from the backstop.

And what would be the solution to the Ireland issue then?

Two years down the line there may be a new government. Possibly another referendum

So what?

The backstop was not needed when the UK was part of the EU, even though there is nothing to prevent border infrastructure and passport checks being introduced on the Irish border under EU law. Even within the Schengen area there are identity checks at the border.

No, there aren't. And the CTA didn't allow passport checks on the border of Ireland. What point are you making here?

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

That's an EU directive and, iirc, UK workers can opt-out except in certain areas (drivers etc)

They can, but most will only do so if it personally suits them, not out of some loyalty to a Govt that imposed a pay freeze on them for the last umpteen years.

As I said in my last post, they'll do it for as long as they fancy the extra cash and won't necessarily improve productivity over an initial boost.

 

[The Don]

But a Norway style deal would not meet the Backstop requirements.

Yes it would, or more specifically a Norway-style deal would render a backstop unnecessary. The backstop is there to ensure that the GFA isn't broken and that there continues to be an open border between the UK and Ireland on the island of Ireland.

A Norway style deal requires that the UK recognises the four freedoms and that there is customs alignment to allow the free flow of goods.

If the UK was in the EEA then there would be no need for a border infrastructure so long as both parties agree.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I think the procurement rules are EU based to ensure equal access to contracts across the EU bids have to be published in the European Journal? So post Brexit may not apply.

That would be for an OJEU bid which I'd put at well over six months - I wasn't referring to that. Even drawing off one of the Govt frameworks will take at least 3 months as you have to draw up your reqts, go to the framework, shortlist suppliers, review etc.

Easy if you're just looking for a standard service but a contract to build a weighbridge facility? Easily months.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes this would be part of the negotiation process.

The negotiation process was completed and not one alternative solution was proposed. Because none exists. You are talking as if the UK haven't had 3 years to come up with a clear proposal on what it wants.

The EU would bring a case against the UK in the ECJ and get any such legislation declared illegal. Then there would be a tricky issue of whether people believed parliament had the authority to act contrary to the court ruling

Do you honestly think if the UK said 'we want to leave the backstop' that the EU response would be 'no way. we are going to go down a long and complicated legal process to attempt to force you to stay in it against your wishes even though that won't benefit either of us and its going to be virtually impossible to enforce?'

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That would be for an OJEU bid which I'd put at well over six months - I wasn't referring to that. Even drawing off one of the Govt frameworks will take at least 3 months as you have to draw up your reqts, go to the framework, shortlist suppliers, review etc.

Easy if you're just looking for a standard service but a contract to build a weighbridge facility? Easily months.

As we have seen before these things can be short-circuited. I'm sure one of Priti Patel's chums will own a company that supplies retail scales to greengrocers who can be employed to build a weighbridge on a contract with no get out clauses for 3 times the market rate.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

As we have seen before these things can be short-circuited. I'm sure one of Priti Patel's chums will own a company that supplies retail scales to greengrocers who can be employed to build a weighbridge on a contract with no get out clauses for 3 times the market rate.

 

[McHrozni]

I think good faith should not be a requirement for negotiation, that is what the lawyers are for..

The EU can absolutely make clear that they will not sign a deal that produces a hard border.

It did do exactly that. It's called the WA.

But that should be part of the negotiation. The problem is that the EU is insisting on agreeing the outcome and that they define the outcome before the negotiations have begun.

That would be the UK, not the EU.

The backstop is causing what it is intended to prevent.

If UK has no intention of introducting a hard border in Ireland why is the backstop such a problem? It's not like UK has any intention of letting it be enacted anyway.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Have you ever worked in the public sector? Rules around procurement mean you won't even have let a contract to setup a new weighbridge etc by end October (it would take 3-6 months) let alone have built the thing.

Not in the British public sector, but if British rules are anything like those on the continent the procedure can be drastically shortned in some special cases, when the need to have something done significantly outweighs the corruption risk inherent in a fast tracked procedure. I'm sure preventing food riots qualifies for a special case and sets no dangerous precendens.

McHrozni