Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[The Brain]

I'm not sure what the Commission has to do with products transported within the UK (some vague paragraphs doesn't change the fundamental division of responsibility). How the UK manages to meet EU requirements (with the apparently unacceptable alternative being closing the Ireland/UK border) while feeding NI seems to me to be a UK problem. The whole point of Brexit is that NI won't be EU's to care about, London is responsible for the wellbeing of NI.

[Zanza]

Northern Ireland having a sea border to Britain was the agreement entered by the UK late last year, so this surely cannot come as a surprise. Maybe they expected the IMB to pass and the WA discarded. Else they had a year to prepare and only have themselves to blame if they did not.

[Zanza]

As brain said above, the UK government took the obligation in the WA for a smooth operation of this special customs regime. The EU wanted a larger role, but was rebuffed by the UK. Sort it out.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure what the Commission has to do with products transported within the UK (some vague paragraphs doesn't change the fundamental division of responsibility). How the UK manages to meet EU requirements (with the apparently unacceptable alternative being closing the Ireland/UK border) while feeding NI seems to me to be a UK problem. The whole point of Brexit is that NI won't be EU's to care about, London is responsible for the wellbeing of NI.

Vague paragraphs about whether Northern Ireland is in the UK = a letter that is being signed by Irish Republicans.

The products are being transported from a third country to the single market/EU customs area. I don't see what the UK can do to meet the EU requirements (except maybe for reimbursing businesses for the costs), because the UK has no jurisdictions over the signle market/customs union. And the Ireland/UK border was unacceptable to both sides - which is why NI isn't really just London's responsibility.

As brain said above, the UK government took the obligation in the WA for a smooth operation of this special customs regime. The EU wanted a larger role, but was rebuffed by the UK. Sort it out.

Both sides took on obligations in relation to the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol and there's a joint committee - that apparently works pretty well, where both sides decide on the implementation of the protocol. But this is an issue of the EU customs area, not the protocol (which is Northern Ireland's best of both world's bit).

The Northern Irish administration's solution of a "trusted trader" scheme doesn't sound crazy to me - EU can monitor regulatory compliance of certain large retailers/wholesalers to avoid risk of a "food scandal" or smuggling, but it protects a large chunk of the retail supply chains for Northern Ireland.

[The Brain]

I'm not sure what the Commission has to do with products transported within the UK (some vague paragraphs doesn't change the fundamental division of responsibility). How the UK manages to meet EU requirements (with the apparently unacceptable alternative being closing the Ireland/UK border) while feeding NI seems to me to be a UK problem. The whole point of Brexit is that NI won't be EU's to care about, London is responsible for the wellbeing of NI.

Vague paragraphs about whether Northern Ireland is in the UK = a letter that is being signed by Irish Republicans.

The products are being transported from a third country to the single market/EU customs area. I don't see what the UK can do to meet the EU requirements (except maybe for reimbursing businesses for the costs), because the UK has no jurisdictions over the signle market/customs union. And the Ireland/UK border was unacceptable to both sides - which is why NI isn't really just London's responsibility.

I don't follow. My understaning is that if the Ireland/UK land border is to be open then stuff that enters NI will have to comply with EU requirements. The UK manages what enters NI, the EU does not. London may well wish that they weren't responsible for its own citizens in NI, but NI isn't in the EU so the EU cannot be responsible even if it wanted to.

[Zanza]

The Northern Irish administration's solution of a "trusted trader" scheme doesn't sound crazy to me - EU can monitor regulatory compliance of certain large retailers/wholesalers to avoid risk of a "food scandal" or smuggling, but it protects a large chunk of the retail supply chains for Northern Ireland.

The British have been talking about "alternative arrangements" for years now, including the "trusted trader scheme". They just moved it from Ireland to the sea border now.

It still violates the EU's customs code and this whole discussion is only necessary because Britain signed the Withdrawal Agreement, then for most of the transition period did too little to implement it, and is now faced with too little capacity for SPS checks and too much bureaucratic overhead due to missing IT systems. The Northern Irish government now appeals to the EU to disregard its laws because of Westminster procrastination and incompetence. 

While both sides took obligations, one side did not fulfill their obligations here to the necessary extent and the other side is now asked to stretch the previously known rules to accommodate that.

[Zanza]

Here is a good Twitter thread on this topic by a British trade expert:
https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1326180809607352326

[Tamas]

Yeah I can't possibly see how what is now a foreign entity (and it is so according to the wishes of the British government and people) should bear any responsibility for feeding the citizens of the UK. This isn't a sudden blockade, this is is something we have known the particulars of for a year and had a forewarning in a general sense for 5 years.

[The Brain]

Especially with the solution being trivial: buy food from EU countries instead of the UK.

[Josquius]

I've said it before I'll say it again.
I continue to be amazed that the worst case that was so laughed at is now coming completely true.
Suffice to say I'm stocking up on beans.

[Sheilbh]

The British have been talking about "alternative arrangements" for years now, including the "trusted trader scheme". They just moved it from Ireland to the sea border now.

You need to distinguish between the British and the Northern Irish executive (made up of the DUP and Sinn Fein). First because the UK government won't know about this in detail, but also because this is different than the "alternative arrangements" or "trusted trader" that's been proposed before. From the letter it is specifically about how onerous the health checks rather than as a wholesale solution.

The joint committee that is working on the implementation of the Northern Irish Protocol have been agreeing derogations or delays to implementation of all sorts of bits of how the single market will operate in Northern Ireland - last week they agreed on the rules for food labelling. The EU is not going to agree to derogate the rules around health checks, but if they are as full-on as for any border crossing then it's tough for supermarkets to operate given that they're largely UK based.

For what it's worth these leaders have also been writing to the British government on bits of the protocol that they can determine.

It still violates the EU's customs code and this whole discussion is only necessary because Britain signed the Withdrawal Agreement, then for most of the transition period did too little to implement it, and is now faced with too little capacity for SPS checks and too much bureaucratic overhead due to missing IT systems. The Northern Irish government now appeals to the EU to disregard its laws because of Westminster procrastination and incompetence. 

The issues, from what I understand is the Export Health Certificates which need to be completed (normally by a vet). In general this is done for every product type every time you're shipping. That works for "trade" it doesn't necessarily work for supermarket lorries containing, say, chicken, cheese, milk, eggs, burgers, sausage rolls etc - because they're not a container of products for trade, they include lots of products. The EHCs need checking at the border and, worst case scenario, up to 30% of the contents need a physical check. Again that works for trade but doesn't work for a supermarket lorry if you have to unload it all.

At the minute there's portakabins for the border infrastructure, but even once that's all built and even if there's an IT system on place. I just don't see how the supermarket chains can comply given the way they ship goods which is sort of different than the "trade"/import-export model. Again that's a difference with the Britis government's attempts to propose "alternative arrangements" which would have covered exporters.

So the supermarkets are saying, at best, they need to reduce what they supply to Northern Ireland.

Especially with the solution being trivial: buy food from EU countries instead of the UK.

Yeah. Part of this might be addressed by routing food through Ireland (about 25% of Northern Ireland's food does that route). But ultimately UK based supermarkets have supply chains and distribution focused on the 65 million people in GB - that's their main market. I don't know that it would be worth it for them to build supply chains just for the 2.5 million people in Northern Ireland. It would be a big cost either to ship single products in builk (like trade) or to rebuild supply chains for a tiny part of their business - probably about 2-3% of revenue. And vice-versa for, say, Carrefour to open in Northern Ireland.

Maybe they expected the IMB to pass and the WA discarded. Else they had a year to prepare and only have themselves to blame if they did not.

I can promise you the Deputy Leader of Sinn Fein did not expect or want the IMB to pass and the WA to be discarded

Here is a good Twitter thread on this topic by a British trade expert:

Yeah - I'd note that on this UK trade twitter is a little divided. They normally all agree, and agree with the EU. On this they're quite divided. I agree with him on the UK paying for it/reimbursing supermarkets, but that doesn't really get past the supermarket specific issues.

Edit: And comment by an Irish trade expert - which was later endorsed by a former Irish Eurocrat:

There are 2 ways of looking at this:

1) these issues have been known for quite some time now, this letter should have been sent in February.

2) if EU does not show some mitigation empathy here, it will be blamed by many, rightly or wrongly.

After all, a rare DUP+SF request.

And, to be clear, that blame isn't form the UK - I think we can all see now how little GB cares about Northern Ireland. It'll be the people of Northern Ireland mainly (and maybe Irish people too).

[Sheilbh]

Shocked, shocked at this:

Inquiry raises concerns over how £3.6bn towns fund was distributed
Watchdog says process was 'not impartial' and decisions were 'politically motivated'
Rajeev Syal
Wed 11 Nov 2020 00.01 GMT
Last modified on Wed 11 Nov 2020 00.03 GMT

An inquiry by parliament's spending watchdog into how ministers distributed £3.6bn to help deprived towns has raised serious concerns that funding decisions were politically biased.

The cross-party public accounts committee said it was "not convinced by the rationales for selecting some towns and not others" when the towns fund was distributed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, (MHCLG) last year.

Justifications offered by ministers for selecting individual towns were "vague and based on sweeping assumptions" and raised concerns over the decisions being politically motivated, the committee said.

The highly critical report comes after the communities secretary, Robert Jenrick, earlier this year denied having any role in selecting his constituency, Newark, for a £25m grant under the scheme, despite having boasted about it during last year's general election.

Jenrick said the award had been signed off by the then communities minister Jake Berry, while he had approved a grant for Darwen in Berry's constituency.

Meg Hillier, chair of the committee, said the system gave "every appearance of having been politically motivated".

"MHCLG must be open and transparent about the decisions it made to hand out those billions of pounds of taxpayers' money, and what it expects to deliver," she said.

The scheme was originally launched "at pace" in July 2019 to support struggling towns across England.

Officials in the department then drew up a ranked priority list of 541 towns based on need and potential for development for ministers to select from.

While the top 40 "high priority" locations were all confirmed, ministers then picked another 61 "medium and low priority" communities from across the rest of the list including one ranked just 536th.

Although the department was supposed to record the "rationale" for choosing some towns and not others, the committee said it was "not convinced" by some of the reasons given. "The selection process was not impartial," they concluded.

The committee also complained that the reasons given by the department for not publishing more information about the selection process were "weak and unconvincing".

It said concerns had been heightened by press statements which wrongly claimed the National Audit Office had concluded that its procedures were "robust".

While the department's permanent secretary, Jeremy Pocklington, said he was satisfied the requirements of "propriety and regularity" had been met, the committee said it was "disappointed" that a summary of his assessment remained unpublished.

"This lack of transparency has fuelled accusations of political bias in the selection process, and has risked the civil service's reputation for integrity and impartiality," it said.

The MHCLG responded to the report with a statement rejecting the main conclusions. A spokesperson said: "We completely disagree with the committee's criticism of the town fund selection process, which was comprehensive, robust and fair.

"The towns fund will help level up the country, creating jobs and building stronger and more resilient local economies."

[Tamas]

You need to distinguish between the British and the Northern Irish executive (made up of the DUP and Sinn Fein). First because the UK government won't know about this in detail, but also because this is different than the "alternative arrangements" or "trusted trader" that's been proposed before. From the letter it is specifically about how onerous the health checks rather than as a wholesale solution.

The joint committee that is working on the implementation of the Northern Irish Protocol have been agreeing derogations or delays to implementation of all sorts of bits of how the single market will operate in Northern Ireland - last week they agreed on the rules for food labelling. The EU is not going to agree to derogate the rules around health checks, but if they are as full-on as for any border crossing then it's tough for supermarkets to operate given that they're largely UK based.

I still don't get the argument to be honest. The EU or any other country cannot be expected to go over the head of the British government and negotiate with local institutions on the matter of international treaties, surely?

More importantly, being more lenient on the Irish border would defeat the purpose of having EU regulations in the first place, since then crap could just pour through that border, which makes it extra-unreasonable to expect the EU to take a hit just so a retarded national self-castration can become slightly less painful.

[Sheilbh]

I still don't get the argument to be honest. The EU or any other country cannot be expected to go over the head of the British government and negotiate with local institutions on the matter of international treaties, surely?

The joint committee on the Northern Irish protocol, from my understanding, includes the UK government, the EU and a representative of the Irish and Northern Irish governments if relevant. Admittedly for most of the negotiations the Northern Irish executive was suspended because power-sharing had collapsed so the Northern Irish government was effectively run by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (with varying levels of indifference) - it was dissolved in 2017 (scandal over renewable energy corruption and rows over use of the Irish language) but restored in 2020. So there is now a Northern Irish Executive to deal with.

The EU needs to go over the head of the British government and deal with local institutions because, the local institutions govern a territory in the single market and have competence over large swathes of that - for example agriculture etc. The UK government can't instruct the Northern Irish administration on what to do in devolved areas.

Incidentally I've read that one thing Barnier's team regret is not going over the head of May's government sooner because, apparently, they hadn't quite appreciated the weakness of the government or the risks of the House of Commons not agreeing. So they were negotiating with the government on the basis that it could pass an agreement which was a mistake.

More importantly, being more lenient on the Irish border would defeat the purpose of having EU regulations in the first place, since then crap could just pour through that border, which makes it extra-unreasonable to expect the EU to take a hit just so a retarded national self-castration can become slightly less painful.

That's why the Northern Irish government is proposing that this only applies to certain retailers. Arlene Foster's point is sterling branded products from reputable brands supplying their own stores are not going to flood across the Irish border into the single market, so don't create significant risk of a food scandal (which is Barnier's concern) or to the single market (unlike the UK government's proposed alternative arrangements).

And ultimately one of the things that have been a priority for both sides through this is the special position of Northern Ireland given its history and the peace process. That's why Northern Ireland is in the single market and GB isn't.

Edit: And also I just don't think this is related to the Brexit process as a whole - again GB does not care about Northern Ireland at all, we've seen that so many times in the last few years. It's about the people of Northern Ireland and the peace process.

[The Brain]

The UK has had literally years to prepare for this. And the whole point of Brexit is the EU NOT being responsible for the UK, or parts thereof. The "I didn't bother studying for the test, can you PLEEASE give me a passing grade anyway?" line of argument is unworthy of governments or other organizations.

Ireland will do fine, it's in the EU. NI isn't in the EU and therefore not the EU's concern.

The idea that the EU should let fine upstanding British firms get special treatment is weird and quaintly Imperial.