Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Brexit
Original poster

I have a question about Customs Union

31 replies

TheHumbleHawthorn · 01/04/2019 11:31

I thought that if we were in a CU with the EU then we couldn't make our own trade deals with third countries.
Have I got that right and, if so, what in the name of god has this whole fiasco been for? How is that Taking Back Control?

OP posts:
nutsfornutella · 01/04/2019 11:34

I think Brexiteers are more focused on taking back control in terms of borders and sovereignty. They see EU immigration and the European courts as threats to the country.

Mistigri · 01/04/2019 11:35

It enables "taking back control" of migration though.

Cos the whole thing was actually all about people not liking foreigners very much.

Labour and Tory both.

lalalonglegs · 01/04/2019 11:41

You're right, Anand Menon, professor of European Studies, confirmed this in a webchat a couple of months back when talking about the UK staying in a CU through the backstop - see below. It's a shockingly bad "solution".

lalalonglegs I have read an article (by Ian Dunt of politics.co.uk) which claims the WA means that if the EU makes any FTAs with countries not currently covered, the UK will have to accept all tariff-free goods etc from these countries as it is covered by the customs union but these countries would not have to apply the same rules to the UK as it would not be part of the EU. This is my understanding of his analysis but I keep thinking I must have got it wrong as it is so obviously disadvantageous to the UK. Are any of you able to clarify?

Anand That is my understanding too. It is the deal that Turkey have got and they hate it!

lalalonglegs · 01/04/2019 11:47

Apologies, I slightly misread your question. But this is another reason that the CU solution is crap Grin. Whether we can or can't make our own trade agreements, there is no incentive for third countries that are negotiating with the EU to negotiate with us because they will get all the advantages of the EU treaty - lower or zero tariffs into the UK - but UK goods will still be subject to tariffs when coming into their country.

Mistigri · 01/04/2019 11:59

You can only understand the Customs Union (= Turkey) option once you have understood that Brexit is all about migration.

Anything closer than Turkey requires freedom of movement of labour.

GCAcademic · 01/04/2019 12:03

I don't understand why it is so desirable for us to move to making trade deals as a single, small country rather than within a block of 28 countries. I fear the kinds of deals we will end up having to accept when we are in an asymmetric negotiating relationship with huge powerful countries like the US, China and India. Does anyone seriously think that these kinds of deals are going to be good for anyone other than the other party?

Peregrina · 01/04/2019 12:32

Does anyone seriously think that these kinds of deals are going to be good for anyone other than the other party?

No, but the people wanting these deals aren't interested in what is good for the whole country. They are disaster capitalists, looking to make as much money for themselves as possible.

Mistigri · 01/04/2019 12:37

I don't think that the customs union is especially attractive to the disaster capitalists tbh.

It's basically a Labour Party policy that may be acceptable to some Tories.

For both Labour and Conservatives, the reason it's potentially more attractive than a Swiss or Norway style Brexit is that it ends freedom of movement of workers.

Politicians know that the the referendum was very little to do with trade or sovereignty and an awful lot to do with migration. If they represent a leave constituency they know that a majority of their constituents probably voted for fewer foreigners.

So they have come up with the Turkey solution, which is definitely a Turkey, but enables them to end free movement.

Peregrina · 01/04/2019 12:40

........but enables them to end free movement then finding that they still need immigration, so end up with more black and brown faces and shock horror, many will be Muslims too. Still in the main, they won't go to the Leavers constituencies..

Original poster
TheHumbleHawthorn · 01/04/2019 12:59

Thanks for replies. I'm deeply disappointed in Labour for promoting this.
Actually, I'm deeply disappointed with Labour full stop.

OP posts:
MullofKintire · 01/04/2019 14:50

...on the deeply disappointed with Labour point, did anyone hear Emily Thornberry (shadow foreign secretary) on World at One today? On the programme as Labour front bench spokesperson, she was unable to say what Labour policy actually was. Just toe curlingly embarrassing to hear.

havingtochangeusernameagain · 01/04/2019 14:51

CU isn't great but there has to be compromise and anything is better than no deal.

ArialAnna · 01/04/2019 14:54

The latest news from the guardian suggests that labour will back the common market 2.0 instead (which would include freedom of movement)

HoustonBess · 01/04/2019 14:59

Tony Blair's a bell end but his 'painful or pointless' analysis of Brexit is spot on.

No deal will wreck the economy. A deal will see us following EU rules without having a say over their formation. If we do get to a position where we can strike our own trade deals, we'll have much less bargaining power than in the European block and therefore will need to compromise on things like food safety, the environment and the NHS.

Staying in the EU is objectively the best option by a mile. We should revoke and then apply the EU rules that were available all along to address things like immigration. Brexiters will be pissed off but they'll be pissed off with any outcome really, when it's clear what a shit show the whole thing is.

Original poster
TheHumbleHawthorn · 01/04/2019 15:00

did anyone hear Emily Thornberry (shadow foreign secretary) on World at One today?

Yes! She claimed not to be sure because she'd been doing interviews all morning Hmm

Did the interviewer say something about Labour accepting freedom of movement now?

OP posts:
Original poster
TheHumbleHawthorn · 01/04/2019 15:01

Xpost with Arial.

OP posts:
Mistigri · 01/04/2019 15:08

CU isn't great but there has to be compromise and anything is better than no deal.

I would agree with this, but I would also say that it is better than no deal in much the same way as May's Agreement is better than no deal - and that has already been rejected by parliament three times.

NoWordForFluffy · 01/04/2019 15:10

I didn't notice the state broadcaster specifically mention FoM to Ms Thornberry, although they did to the Lib Dem Brexit spokesperson.

She did say they're supporting CM2.0 as they needed to compromise and this idea was closely enough aligned to their policies to be able to move forwards to try to sort Brexit (subtext: TM is totally incapable of compromise, we're being the grown ups).

NoWordForFluffy · 01/04/2019 15:13

Lucy Powell (Labour) now being interviewed.

Happy to accept the FoM as detailed in CM2.0 as it critically gives extra - unilateral - powers to limit immigration under EFTA/EEA. And that it could all be put into place by July.

Mistigri · 01/04/2019 15:15

CM2.0 is unicorns btw ... especially the bit about controlling FoM.

But if lying to people about FoM is the price for staying in the single market then ... well, fine. EU immigration won't recover quickly anyway.

Mistigri · 01/04/2019 15:16

Happy to accept the FoM as detailed in CM2.0 as it critically gives extra - unilateral - powers to limit immigration under EFTA/EEA. And that it could all be put into place by July.

LOL. It's like the last four years never happened.

You have to laugh or you'd cry at the insanity of our political class.

ferns99 · 01/04/2019 15:57

Labour's Barry Gardiner wrote this rather scathing assessment of staying in the Customs Union in the Guardian in 2017:

"We would be unable to enter into any bilateral free trade agreement. We would be obliged to align our regulatory regime with the EU in all areas covered by the EU, without any say in the rules we had to adopt. And were, say, the EU to negotiate an agreement with the U.S. that was in the union’s best interests, but against our own, our markets would be obliged to accept American produce with no guarantee of reciprocal access for our own goods into the U.S."

NoWordForFluffy · 01/04/2019 16:01

LOL. It's like the last four years never happened.

You have to laugh or you'd cry at the insanity of our political class.

Who's advising them on their assertions, that's the question? Where do they get their ideas from?!

Original poster
TheHumbleHawthorn · 01/04/2019 17:29

I didn't notice the state broadcaster specifically mention FoM to Ms Thornberry
They did, repeatedly.

Why are you referring to the BBC as the state broadcaster?

OP posts:
Mistigri · 01/04/2019 17:31

Who's advising them on their assertions, that's the question? Where do they get their ideas from?!

Who knows. Like a lot of these things, it's partly true, which is why it has some credibility - there is unilateral power to control immigration under FoM in the EEA, but it isn't a useful power for the U.K. because the bar is high (exceptional migrant flows causing objective harm) and a decision to trigger it would have consequences (the EU would retaliate by restricting single market access as they threatened to do to the Swiss when they voted to restrict EU immigration).

So it's kind of true "on paper", and I suppose that's its function: to signal its anti-migrant credentials to people who don't like foreigners. In practice the UK's reputation as a destination for EU migrants has been sufficiently trashed that EU migration will be depressed for some years.