Westministenders: A LOOOONNNGGGGGGGG Hot Summer

[RedToothBrush]

May has officially demoted Raab and the Brexit Department to just being responsible for practical implimentation in the UK and not negogitions.

This shouldn't be a surprise, its been the case in reality for some time, much to David Davis annoyance.

The official government position now seems to be scare the shit out of everyone about the possibility of No Deal in order to force the EU to make a deal. Jeremy Hunt has been dutifully spelling this out, by talking about an 'accidental' Brexit.

The government are already outsourcing responsibility for this potential eventuality to industy and business by telling them they need to stockpile food in order to keep supply lines going. This WILL mean price rises will start to happen soon. It also means there is no coordinated government plan and if businesses can't afford to do this as its heavily dependant on having sufficient cash flow in reserve to be able to do it, or don't want to, then you, me and everyone else is going to be well and truly on their own. Whilst the public are not being told to stockpile, its hard to justify not doing so, if this is the current government line.

The government has also done a u-turn on when the repeal of the European Communities Act will come into force. They fought hard to have it fixed for 29th March 2019. Thats now been rolled back to Dec 2020. This is fine, but in practice, makes no difference what so ever if we have no deal or the EU refuse to honour a transition deal on the terms the UK want. The ERG will also go nuts at it and try to get May to roll back on it.

Raab has also made a point of saying that if we don't have a deal by October (rather than midnight 29th March 2019) we are going into No Deal land by default.

Parliament has now broken up for the summer, with May surviving, so things are likely to be a little quieter for a few weeks, but come September this is all going to blow up with avengance.

If you think the last few weeks have been a rollercoaster, just wait for the Autumn.

I don't know how it works, do posters just report a thread and MNHQ move it?

MNHQ make it up as they go along, as anyone who has reported posts will know.

Unlike most government ministers, Liam Fox GP is probably less of a danger to the public when in office than he was in his original job.^

A mediocre doctor?

So he was more suited to being a doctor than being a really shit politician then.

Well this brightened up my morning.

@BBCNews
"My wife is Japanese... my wife is Chinese, sorry!" - UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has an awkward moment as he starts visit to Beijing

@DavidLammy
Almost everyone: "Boris Johnson was the most offensive, disrespectful and globally embarrassing figure to hold the office of British Foreign Secretary."

Jeremy Hunt: "Hold my beer..."

That was a weird story. What kind of brainfart do you have to have to get your own wife's nationality wrong? And then for it to be a minor diplomatic screw up, too.

Red - my dad is one of the least pass remarkable people I know, who always tries to see the best in people, so if he says Fox was "mediocre", that means he was truly shit

Let's just say dad is not surprised that Fox is not up to the job

Re Jeremy Hunt
Also worth remembering the antagonism between China and Japan. Telling someone who is Chinese they are Japanese (and the other way around) is a real big insult.
He must have got a massive bollocking back home too!!

Liam Fox says people warning NHS will be sold off in Brexit trade deal with Trump are 'anti-trade

So I’m assuming that the plan IS to sell the NHS then?
Didn’t the ‘people’ voted for the exact opposite, aka the 350 millions a week to the NHS instead??
What about the will of the people? Why is it not acted upon?

The only thing that stops Fox being the worst member of the cabinet is Grayling. And in former times Boris and DD. Although it's probably easier to think of someone in the cabinet who is halfway decent.

Actually perhaps it's not...

The first rule of the phrase 'the will of the people' is that it is to be invoked, when the government thinks enough people are brainwashed enough to think that the current government policy was their idea in the first place.

The second rule of the phrase 'the will of the people' is that it must never be invoked if the actual majority of the people want something that runs in contrast to the will of the government.

The third rule of the phrase 'the will of the people' is to use it so often, as long as it doesn't contradict the first and second laws, that nobody is 100 percent sure what the will of the people is. This allows the government to decide for the people, what their will is alongside distracting from any contradictory 'will of the people' statements.

The fourth rule of the phrase 'the will of the people ' is to call anyone questioning the use of the phrase a traitor, preferably with the help of a national newspaper. The resultant death threats will mean that anyone questioning the government will be too busy dealing with the aftermath, as well as being a useful deterrent for any other 'will of the people' dissenters.

Maybe Mrs Jeremy Hunt is a wife of convenience ?

"The Will Of The People"

is an irregular phrase c.f:

I give informal press briefings;
You leak
They have just been charged under s20 of the Official Secrets Act ....

susan He's called "Failing Grayling" for good reason

David Allen Green @davidallengreen
Brexiter confusion about trade deals.

First opinion: "We don't need a trade deal with EU to trade with EU"

Second opinion: "Benefit of Brexit is to do trade deals with countries we already trade with"

And they don't notice the dissonance.

George Eaton @georgeeaton
The Brexiteers walked into their own trap: the more no deal is talked about, the more disastrous it appears.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/07/brexiteers-only-have-themselves-blame-backlash-over-no-deal-planning
The Brexiteers only have themselves to blame for the backlash over no deal planning

By pushing for the most extreme strategy, Tory Leavers have increased the chance of no Brexit at all.

Lets hope eh?

Bryce Baschuk @bbaschuk
It starts ...
New Zealand Opposes U.K.'s @wto quota plan:
www.globalmeatnews.com/Article/2018/07/27/New-Zealand-opposes-EU-and-UK-s-quota-split-proposal

“Markets are dynamic, domestic production and consumer demand continues to evolve, and it is important for market stability that New Zealand’s sheepmeat and beef exporters are able to factor that into their marketing plans.”

“We are also absolutely confused by the timing of this proposal – given that the terms of the UK’s exit have yet to be negotiated between the UK and EU."

"Without clarity and details around the future trading relationship between the UK and EU, it is very difficult to assess the implications of their proposal. "

"It is therefore both illogical and unacceptable to be put in a position of having to negotiate an arbitrary split of our legally binding market access rights when there is so much uncertainty about the shape of the future trading relationship between the EU and the UK.”

END

Dmitry Grozoubinski @DmitryOpines
1/ NZ blocks draft @WTO UK Goods schedule. This was inevitable.

To allow (not object, to) certification of the UK schedule would be to give up the right to legally challenge anything in it as a loss of market access.

Why did they do it and what does it mean?

2/ In their new draft schedules, the EU and UK are keeping tariff levels (%) unchanged. So what's the issue?

Quatas.

Instead of flat percentages, some of the more sensitive products for the EU had quotas, effectively only allowing a fixed volume into the EU.

3/ Quotas. Cool. So what?

Well, in their new schedule the UK and EU are splitting those quotas (both the ones open to everyone and those only specific other countries could use) based on where (UK or EU) the goods have recently been going.

4/ That sounds reasonable, why are NZ being jerks?

Australian answer: They can't help it, the bastards.

Real answer: Because NZ and others argue it's a reduction of access. If previously they could follow demand to anywhere in the EU 28, now they are locked in to past patterns.

5/ What?

So previously if you had access to a 1000 tonne EU pork quota, you could sell it all to UK one year, France the next or split it wherever the best price was.

Now NZ argues, they are locked into whatever they happened to sell in the three year reference being used.

6/ Oh. Anything else?

Well, as @DavidHenigUK has written the formula the UK and EU used has produced some bizarre and unusable quotas (1 tonne of Canada pork to the UK per annum).

The EU/UK have also admitted they don't actually know where stuff went so the numbers may be off.

7/ OK, I get that, what does it mean for the UK?

It's annoying but not apocalyptic.

Any WTO Member can block certification of a draft schedule forever, but the UK can trade just fine with an uncertified schedule.

8/ So a block is meaningless?

Not quite. An uncertified schedule means Members are still considering challenging the UK schedule in a WTO Dispute as a loss of access.

Thats stressful on its own, and the ambiguity could give others (slight) pause in opening FTA negotiations.

9/ I heard the UK and EU took different approaches to this?

The EU circulated its schedule as a notification of reduced access, basically inviting Members who felt wronged to come negotiate.

The UK plonked theirs down as a technical ratification, like they were fixing a typo.

10/ What's the difference?

Positioning. The EU is accepting the premise of those like NZ that tariff quota splitting could lead to a loss of access, and the UK isn't.

/Thread

David Henig @DavidHenigUK
More on agriculture at the WTO. Summary: The UK cannot be complacent about having a WTO basis for trade by March.

Surprised other media have not picked up - too technical?

John Alty @JohnAlty1
Some comment around about UK WTO TRQs. UK set out its approach to TRQ holders last October and has been in detailed discussions since. No surprises in reactions to our goods schedules @tradegovuk

Bryce Baschuk @bbaschuk
This is true - 7 major agricultural exporters told the UK & EU they disagreed with the proposed tariff rate quota split back in Sept. 2017

Letter here: bit.ly/2O0Eqtr

Countries: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, Thailand, the U.S., and Uruguay

What's changed since Sept. 2017 is the UK/EU quota split is no longer a proposal. The UK & EU have formally forged ahead with an approach that their biggest agricultural importers fundamentally disagree with

The EU recognizes that it must renegotiate w/ the WTO's other 136 members to address the loss of the UK market from its @wto schedule. That is why they are pursuing Article 28 renegotiations.
Link here: bit.ly/2LAlkfd

In contrast, the UK argues that this is a quick technical fix that won't harm their trading partners.
They are pursuing a 1980 @wto procedure known as technical rectification.

Link here: bit.ly/2v48I5R

Here's what happens next:

Over the next three months @wto members will likely raise their objections and seek negotiations with the EU & UK to address any perceived harm caused by the tariff rate quota split.

The EU & UK will then try to appease the concerns of any aggrieved exporters or face the potential for @wto dispute proceedings that could bring uncertainty to the legal foundation upon which they trade with the rest of the world.

To be sure, the UK could unilaterally implement its rectified @wto schedules & operate on an uncertified basis (for a while). Indeed, the EU has been trading on outdated schedules for years. UK negotiators could also appease any aggrieved parties via separate FTA negotiations.

But if @wto members trigger dispute settlement proceedings questioning the legality of the UK schedules and Britain loses the case it will throw the UK's entire trade status into uncertainty. At that point the UK may be called to to renegotiate its @wto schedules via Article 28.

Article 28 renegotiations involve a lengthy and laborious process where the UK negotiates w/ the @wto's other 136 members to accommodate any perceived loss of market access. The UK wants to avoid this, which is why they are pursuing the rectification approach in the first place.

If the UK's approach is dragged into @wto dispute proceedings it would put the UK in a weaker negotiating position with potential FTA partners. In addition, any prospective FTA partners might hold off on a new trade deal while the UK's fundamental @wto trade terms are in doubt.

^Some countries may calculate that if the UK loses the @wto dispute case the UK would have to renegotiate their basic trade terms via Article 28, and offer new concessions in return for @wto certification.
Why cut an FTA deal now when you can hold out for a better one later?^

END

I don't enough about the situation in the North West of England, but from listening to Andy Burnham I realise he is a politician too , Grayling is blaming Burnham and the Northern Transport Board of which he has been chair for a whole two months for not doing things that they don't have the power to do AND that they've been asking Grayling for the power to do and he's not even been answering their requests

but there again, why does that surprise me as that seems to be the modus operandi of this government

So how many of you understood the contents of my last post.

Remember:
'We can just fall back on WTO terms. Its easy'

So if you didn't understand that post you are remarkably stupid and are incapable of understanding simple international trade arrangements.

Apparently.

Grayling has been invited to meetings about transport in the NW.
Hes either cancelled, been too busy to attend or just can't be arsed.

I'm not a particular fan of burham but the bullshit Grayling has been trying to pull over transport in the NW has been nothing short of contemptous.

Separating responsibility and accountability are classic political tricks.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/damning-report-slams-government-failing-14967156
Damning report slams government for failing to stop rail crisis and says north MUST take control

The report, released by the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, analyses the disruption that peaked in May and June

A damning report on the Northern Rail and TransPennine timetable crisis slams the government for failing to use its powers to prevent the chaos.

The report, released by the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, analyses the disruption that peaked in May and June - and concludes power over rail must be devolved to the north.

and from yesterday:

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/big-chunk-northerns-timetable-back-14962403
A big chunk of Northern's timetable is back on Monday - but not for many Greater Manchester passengers

Greater Manchester passengers will have to wait until September for many services

Today:

Christian Spence @ChristianSpence
So @northernassist have cancelled 8% of their trains so far this morning. Whilst @TPEassist on their prime northern route (Manchester to Leeds and beyond) have already cancelled 25%.

I actually rather feel for Burnham over this. Hes reduced to more or less banging his head against a brick wall.

Anyway, lets have a riveting chat about wooden pallets. This was written in Sept 2017:

medium.com/@andyblatch64/in-less-than-2-years-the-uk-will-be-leaving-the-eu-becoming-a-third-country-bb26bc7c226e
Phytosanitary requirements for entry into the EU (wooden packaging).

In less than 2 years the UK will be leaving the EU becoming a third country. I am looking in this blog at wooden packing requirements as a third country exporting to the EU. These standards include wooden packing cases and in particular wooden pallets which everyone uses. This is entirely separate from what is in or on that packaging.

The EU requires all imports that have wooden packaging from third countries to conform to ISPM 15 standard as set out in [[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32004L0102]]

Currently as the UK is trading within the single market shippers do not have to conform to this standard. If you export to the single market you can use less strict standards as set out by HMRC
www.gov.uk/wood-packaging-import-export , in reality it means in practice you can use any old pallet that is laying about as there is no control point that checks this requirement.

At 2300 (the UK being an hour behind) on the 29th March 2019 we will have to conform to ISPM15. At that point there will be a control point at the border doing these checks that we are meeting that requirement. A certain amount of trailers will be stopped and checked that the packaging is conforming to the standard. This will cause delays as every wooden pallet will have to be checked for the required marking. In practice this would mean being very careful of how the vehicles are loaded. With a curtain sided vehicle with all the pallet markings on the outside then easier, with a solid sided vehicle everything will be offloaded and checked.

Typically all Customs world wide work via risk profiling. If the ones they do check are fine then they will stick to minimum checks, if (and as I expect) the ones they stop particularly groupage trailers do not conform they will have to check more and more.

This is difficult enough but even then I am assuming there will be a deal on trade and mutual recognition agreements that the notifiable institution (in the UK it is the Forestry Commission) that oversee standards will be recognised by the EU. This isn’t looking currently likely in the event of a hard Brexit, At a stroke we would find that they would not recognise the markings on the wooden packing and would either mean it cannot cross the border or requires fumigation.

Erm, that sounds practical and errr yeah, Irish border.

Even if we have a deal with the EU, we might have a pallet problem and be unable to import/export.

We're back to

"Don't you know who I am ?"

Red That was exactly the question I was trying to get answered. So, in effect: UK submits schedule (inc. tariff quotas), there is an extended period of arguing during which nothing is certified, and until the schedules are certified UK is open to action from other member countries if they feel that the revised schedules or quotas are detrimental; only once certified do the schedules become legally binding. So while it is perfectly possible to trade under the proposed schedules it is under the shadow of potential WTO dispute proceedings and while trying to negotiate multiple treaties between EU, UK and the relevant third party. As well as an EU deal.

Yes, I jumped on that too, Iwas. Trade can (and likely will happen), but the threat of a dispute may make other countries hesitate about starting negotiations on a bilateral trade deal until the objection is resolved.

I also found the language around the nature of the quota change submission interesting.