Three reasons why 2024 will be a bad year for Brexit The real reason that 2024 will be a bad year for Brexit most of you will already be aware of: every year is a bad year for Brexit. However, next year will be particularly bad for the project for these three reasons:
I can see a third reaction to the incoming ETIAS procedures: selling that as a Brexit bonus.
Yes, that sounds counter intuitive at first, however, we need to remember that the UK electorate also celebrated the Schengen opt-out as something positive.
The new checks are just a more thorough version of those, essentially a strengthened opt-out.
Given that a good portion of British apparently values the formalities when leaving and re-entering the country, isn't it likely that they will also value a more sophisticated version?
As a small niche manufacturer of electronic devices who also manufactures in EU country Poland, importing and exporting around the world, I am absolutely dreading this new regime of customs checks, percentage origin content to be assessed and duty tariffs coming in. This is not free trade. That is an important point because Johnson sold this as a Free Trade Agreement with the EU. It is far worse than our trade with countries where we do not have free trade agreements, such as USA.
If these restrictions to trade and travel come in after the General Election, the popular right wing press will attempt to pin it on Labour as well as "EU are punishing is for leaving". The measures do not apply to just the UK, but all non EU/EEA & EFTA countries where there are no alternative agreements. In 2018, before we left the EU, I went through German customs with a Mexican national. I went straight through, but she was held up for 20-25 minutes and that was not at an especially busy time, such as school holiday peaks in August. I dread the thought of the queues, especially as austerity and staff shortages only ever seem to get worse.
Starmer has said no to the Single Market and Customs Union, yet at the time of the stupid vote, the Leave campaigners said "nobody is suggesting we leave the Single market....it would be mad...etc". Starmer has an admirable Industrial & Green strategy, with Labour and LibDem economic & green policy closer than I can ever remember them, perhaps quietly judged to encourage anti Tory tactical voting. But if we go with these trade and travel restrictions, the economy is going to remain moribund and the extra growth needed to pay for public services is not going to arrive, at least not remotely sufficiently. Starmer is going to have to find reasons to back peddle on joining the SM & CU or something similar, or his administration will be seen as a failure on the main issue and the public will lose interest in having a change of government from our corrupt and incompetent right wing default party. Voters will stay at home or drift back and the momentous chance to transform Britain would be lost.
Why exactly can't they keep on delaying these incoming checks indefinitely? Is there a time limit in the trade deal? If there is some sanction for delaying past a certain point, would the Tories be better off invoking it ,and leaving both that sanction and their final implementation as a headache for the incoming government?
As far as I understand it, it isn't really about the trade deal per se. There are two parts to this. Firstly, we are no longer part of the systems that monitor and enforce standards, and the EU has no obligation to check exports on our behalf. Without checks the country is wide open to unscrupulous exporters who can send sub standard products to the UK with little risk to themselves and no legal recourse. This is a public health ticking timebomb and any responsible government needs to have these controls in place (in the absence of shared procedures and agreements). Secondly, we're in breach of WTO rules, we're treating EU goods coming through Dover more leniantly than good coming via air, for example. This gives EU producers an advantage without it being covered by a bilateral deal, so we're open to be being sued in the WTO by non EU countries (who have accepted a transition period, but it can't last for ever).
That makes it clearer why someone in government has to enforce the rules at some point. But I still can't see what the Tory government's motivation would be for doing it during its death throes. Surely, if they delay again, then the ensuing chaos can be blamed on Labour, rather than brexit or themselves.
Ah, yes. It would make sense for them to delay it again for the reasons you describe, though it risks more alienation of the business community who are continually having to prepare for the changes and then see that cost for nothing. I guess also there is part of this that the government have committed to doing these checks, and it is the civil service implementing what has been set out, and the delays have been because it is complex and no one is ready. At the point where they are technically ready to be started there is no longer an excuse to delay, they'd have to actively tell the civil service not to implement the thing they've been working towards, which also requires a government with the competence to recognise the costs it will bring (which I'm not convinced they do, rather than just delaying at the least minute because it isn't ready)
Delaying the implementation of the planned controls may be considered by the EU as a lack of commitment by the UK government to respect the signed treaties
You don't understand do you? A/ The Tories have long ago lost any trustworthiness in the eyes of Europe .2/ They see aggravating EU/UK relations as a vote winner. But mostly they wouldn't care because they know they won't be around to deal with the fallout. The more crap they can leave the incoming Labour government to deal with, the better , in their eyes.
This is about how the Tories will behave, not UK government's in general.
I can see a third reaction to the incoming ETIAS procedures: selling that as a Brexit bonus.
Yes, that sounds counter intuitive at first, however, we need to remember that the UK electorate also celebrated the Schengen opt-out as something positive.
The new checks are just a more thorough version of those, essentially a strengthened opt-out.
Given that a good portion of British apparently values the formalities when leaving and re-entering the country, isn't it likely that they will also value a more sophisticated version?
As a small niche manufacturer of electronic devices who also manufactures in EU country Poland, importing and exporting around the world, I am absolutely dreading this new regime of customs checks, percentage origin content to be assessed and duty tariffs coming in. This is not free trade. That is an important point because Johnson sold this as a Free Trade Agreement with the EU. It is far worse than our trade with countries where we do not have free trade agreements, such as USA.
If these restrictions to trade and travel come in after the General Election, the popular right wing press will attempt to pin it on Labour as well as "EU are punishing is for leaving". The measures do not apply to just the UK, but all non EU/EEA & EFTA countries where there are no alternative agreements. In 2018, before we left the EU, I went through German customs with a Mexican national. I went straight through, but she was held up for 20-25 minutes and that was not at an especially busy time, such as school holiday peaks in August. I dread the thought of the queues, especially as austerity and staff shortages only ever seem to get worse.
Starmer has said no to the Single Market and Customs Union, yet at the time of the stupid vote, the Leave campaigners said "nobody is suggesting we leave the Single market....it would be mad...etc". Starmer has an admirable Industrial & Green strategy, with Labour and LibDem economic & green policy closer than I can ever remember them, perhaps quietly judged to encourage anti Tory tactical voting. But if we go with these trade and travel restrictions, the economy is going to remain moribund and the extra growth needed to pay for public services is not going to arrive, at least not remotely sufficiently. Starmer is going to have to find reasons to back peddle on joining the SM & CU or something similar, or his administration will be seen as a failure on the main issue and the public will lose interest in having a change of government from our corrupt and incompetent right wing default party. Voters will stay at home or drift back and the momentous chance to transform Britain would be lost.
Why exactly can't they keep on delaying these incoming checks indefinitely? Is there a time limit in the trade deal? If there is some sanction for delaying past a certain point, would the Tories be better off invoking it ,and leaving both that sanction and their final implementation as a headache for the incoming government?
As far as I understand it, it isn't really about the trade deal per se. There are two parts to this. Firstly, we are no longer part of the systems that monitor and enforce standards, and the EU has no obligation to check exports on our behalf. Without checks the country is wide open to unscrupulous exporters who can send sub standard products to the UK with little risk to themselves and no legal recourse. This is a public health ticking timebomb and any responsible government needs to have these controls in place (in the absence of shared procedures and agreements). Secondly, we're in breach of WTO rules, we're treating EU goods coming through Dover more leniantly than good coming via air, for example. This gives EU producers an advantage without it being covered by a bilateral deal, so we're open to be being sued in the WTO by non EU countries (who have accepted a transition period, but it can't last for ever).
That makes it clearer why someone in government has to enforce the rules at some point. But I still can't see what the Tory government's motivation would be for doing it during its death throes. Surely, if they delay again, then the ensuing chaos can be blamed on Labour, rather than brexit or themselves.
Ah, yes. It would make sense for them to delay it again for the reasons you describe, though it risks more alienation of the business community who are continually having to prepare for the changes and then see that cost for nothing. I guess also there is part of this that the government have committed to doing these checks, and it is the civil service implementing what has been set out, and the delays have been because it is complex and no one is ready. At the point where they are technically ready to be started there is no longer an excuse to delay, they'd have to actively tell the civil service not to implement the thing they've been working towards, which also requires a government with the competence to recognise the costs it will bring (which I'm not convinced they do, rather than just delaying at the least minute because it isn't ready)
Delaying the implementation of the planned controls may be considered by the EU as a lack of commitment by the UK government to respect the signed treaties
Why would that worry the Tories?
Because it's a smart thing to appear trustworthy to other nations. Or because you will be at a disadvantage when the agreements are up for renewal.
You don't understand do you? A/ The Tories have long ago lost any trustworthiness in the eyes of Europe .2/ They see aggravating EU/UK relations as a vote winner. But mostly they wouldn't care because they know they won't be around to deal with the fallout. The more crap they can leave the incoming Labour government to deal with, the better , in their eyes.
This is about how the Tories will behave, not UK government's in general.