Blow me for €4 billion

[northernladyuk]

so you believe if there are to be a ceasing of invisible borders, movement of people will be unaffected? I don't, which is why everyone is against your option #1 below isn't it?

It is important to differentiate between people and goods. Norway and Sweden are in Schengen so people move freely. They are not both within the customs union, so goods are treated differently. CTA is analagous to Schengen. The most serious potential impact onpeople, would be if a decision is made to close individual border crossings - individuals can still cross border crossings in the same way, but there are fewer crossings. Prsumably there would also be some checks (either random or intelligence led) for smuggling. These must already exist at the border but no idea how it works and I've crossed it enough times.

So Option 1 is a bad option, but as long as the UK refuses 2 and 3, it is the only one left.

nobody wants this AFAIK

No, but it's 1, 2 or 3. Take yer pick.

couldn't make it's own trade deals so won't/can't happen

Something has to give. It might be this. 1, 2 or 3. Take yer pick.

Or, the UK/EU will have to propose a completely novel approach, due to the unique circumstances and precedent of both Brexit and NI

Well, if NI is not in the customs union, then it's a novel approach that means managing tariffs, ergo a border. Give us a clue.

[Bean]

Ah, so nothing like a union at all, completely the opposite of a union, because if it was a union, then the Brexit camp would be 100% against it. No, not a union, a “partnership”, a bit like a husband and wife, partners., but not like a husband and wife who enter into the union of marriage, because that’s a union.

Both sides would be united in the “partnership” in an effort to maintain united cooperation, united business opportunities, united trade flows, united customs deals, but agreed at different times, just in case anyone thought that the agreement was made in union.

In other words, someone is playing with semantics to try to get themselves out of the hole.
I wonder what the Democratic Partnership Party make of all this.

Well, as long as the new 'union' doesn't preclude the UK from completing trade agreements with non-EU countries then it won't be the same and I would venture that brexiteers would be happy with that.

Still, I don't expect you to see past your froth and spittle and identify the nuance in what I've said. HTH BIKIW

[WTFH]

Also, couldn't the UK have minimum standards as part of our own deals, therefore bypassing your second paragraph - just for example, off the top of my head.

Just because you, WTFH and/or others can't or won't think of alternatives doesn't preclude others from doing so does it?

Maybe that’s why I mentioned CEN earlier, but you didn’t pick up on it?

The easiest way would be to stick with CEN for standards, alternatively, to please the Brexit camp, we could bring everything back to the BSI. That would be great, except for products to be sold in the UK that required certification, they would have to be re-labelled/manufactured with the relevant new BS Kitemark, with the associated additional costs.
For UK products to be sold in Europe, they would need to be stamped with both BS & EN references, and any changes in one system would need to be replicated in the other for trade to continue.

So, splitting away from CEN would either stop businesses supplying, or will increase the costs, paperwork and ultimately the selling price, while providing no discernible benefit.

Maybe we could sign up to ANSI instead, giving us back inches & feet, gallons and pints... but US gallons, not imperial ones. There’s an alternative.

[northernladyuk]

Well, as long as the new 'union' doesn't preclude the UK from completing trade agreements with non-EU countries then it won't be the same and I would venture that brexiteers would be happy with that.

Still, I don't expect you to see past your froth and spittle and identify the nuance in what I've said. HTH BIKIW

How odd - we were having such a civilised conversation for a change.

There is no customs union to be had while the UK in completing trade agreements with non-EU countries. It's one or the other and this is presumably one of the reasons why Norway is outside of the customs union. To think otherwise is fantasy. So the border now needs to be managed for the movement of goods. And there are currently 275 land border crossings.

[Bean]

It is important to differentiate between people and goods. Norway and Sweden are in Schengen so people move freely. They are not both within the customs union, so goods are treated differently. CTA is analagous to Schengen. The most serious potential impact onpeople, would be if a decision is made to close individual border crossings - individuals can still cross border crossings in the same way, but there are fewer crossings. Prsumably there would also be some checks (either random or intelligence led) for smuggling. These must already exist at the border but no idea how it works and I've crossed it enough times.

So Option 1 is a bad option, but as long as the UK refuses 2 and 3, it is the only one left.

If no novel approach is used, then I guess it'll be a nuanced agreement of #1, that somehow (no idea how) still lets people think the GFA is being respected

No, but it's 1, 2 or 3. Take yer pick.

same as above

Something has to give. It might be this. 1, 2 or 3. Take yer pick.

Can't see the UK giving this up, as it won't respect the vote etc etc too much time, money and effort spent by all the UK gov talking about trade deals with the world to let that go

Well, if NI is not in the customs union, then it's a novel approach that means managing tariffs, ergo a border. Give us a clue.

again, but i'll include myself this time;
Just because You, I, WTFH and/or others can't or won't think of alternatives doesn't preclude others from doing so does it?

I note you mentioned tariffs (future trade) - something that can't be agreed until we sort the border problem, which is a bit of a paradox isn't it? The EU needs to let us start discussing future trade, and link that to the NI border solution - to try and do it as standalone pieces of agreement will end in tears for all.

[Bean]

How odd - we were having such a civilised conversation for a change.

There is no customs union to be had while the UK in completing trade agreements with non-EU countries. It's one or the other and this is presumably one of the reasons why Norway is outside of the customs union. To think otherwise is fantasy. So the border now needs to be managed for the movement of goods. And there are currently 275 land border crossings.

WE are.

WTFH said;
Clueless and directionless. No idea what you want, but you’ll argue black is white with anyone who might have a clue


Obviously tarring everyone with the same brush, so I believe my comment to them is fair, without undue ad hominem - but just to be fair;

Did you NlyUK, see the nuance in what I said about the customs agreement vs a customs union?


Hmmm, and that's why I think it has to be a novel agreement on customs is required, along with some innovative approach yet tbc

[WTFH]

The EU needs to let us start discussing future trade, and link that to the NI border solution - to try and do it as standalone pieces of agreement will end in tears for all.

Earlier on you were calling for parallel discussions, now you’re saying it’s the EU’s fault and things should not be discussed as standalone.

It’s not the EU’s fault that you can’t make your mind up.

[northernladyuk]

If no novel approach is used, then I guess it'll be a nuanced agreement of #1, that somehow (no idea how) still lets people think the GFA is being respected

I'm not sure people will think the GFA is being respected, but it is making the best of 1, I would agree. Norway / Sweden is worth looking at but 275 border crossings? Really? And closing the border crossing will not go down well. 'Novel approach' is really UK magical thinking around having and eating the cake.

I
Can't see the UK giving this up, as it won't respect the vote etc etc too much time, money and effort spent by all the UK gov talking about trade deals with the world to let that go

I can't see the UK giving up on this, but that is just the hardline Brexiteers, using the referendum as a fig leaf. There is no mandate for staying in or leaving the customs union.

I
I note you mentioned tariffs (future trade) - something that can't be agreed until we sort the border problem, which is a bit of a paradox isn't it? The EU needs to let us start discussing future trade, and link that to the NI border solution - to try and do it as standalone pieces of agreement will end in tears for all.

The details of future trade don't need to be worked out at all to sort out the border. NI is leaving the customs union. That's enough to know to start sorting it out. If it waits until all the trade arrangements are sorted, how will there be time to implement the infrastructure and processes needed across 275 crossings?

Anyway, mostly nice talking. Need to finish up work now to get to the pub.

[Bean]

Earlier on you were calling for parallel discussions, now you’re saying it’s the EU’s fault and things should not be discussed as standalone.

It’s not the EU’s fault that you can’t make your mind up.

There's no problem there - would you like 5 mins to re-read my posts? (again, instead of misquoting/badly paraphrasing/misunderstanding).

Maybe you can delete your comment and mine to save yourself face then (I'm happy for you to delete mine after your own if you wish )


I said earlier they could merge groups (I.e NOT standalone), they could NOT exclusively talk about 1 issue per group (again, NOT standalone) and that they should talk about transition and future trade talks in parallel (and that after NlyUK's post, that tariffs could be linked with the border issue).


Seriously......are you having an off day at work or something? You don't normally make these kinds of mistakes. HTH

[Bean]

I'm not sure people will think the GFA is being respected, but it is making the best of 1, I would agree. Norway / Sweden is worth looking at but 275 border crossings? Really? And closing the border crossing will not go down well. 'Novel approach' is really UK magical thinking around having and eating the cake.

I agree it is relatively far-fetched *compared to the norm*, but we have to make this happen somehow and decently for everyone involved

I can't see the UK giving up on this, but that is just the hardline Brexiteers, using the referendum as a fig leaf. There is no mandate for staying in or leaving the customs union.

It could be argued that we shouldn't be tied into an agreement/union, of which the rules are still dictated by the EU, which we voted to leave. That removes the whole trade deal argument and can still be argued.

The details of future trade don't need to be worked out at all to sort out the border. NI is leaving the customs union. That's enough to know to start sorting it out. If it waits until all the trade arrangements are sorted, how will there be time to implement the infrastructure and processes needed across 275 crossings?

Anyway, mostly nice talking. Need to finish up work now to get to the pub.

I agree, it wouldn't leave much time - however if we open parallel talks and immediately set out some basic frameworks, they may allow some genius to come up with that 'novel' approach. But yes, they are currently leaving and so plans need to made accordingly and they may well be in progress but we the public don't know.

Yes indeed, enjoy the pub and your weekend
(btw unless you are also WTFH, nothing but discussion and questions were sent your way )