Showing posts with label magical thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label magical thinking. Show all posts

Friday, 2 March 2018

Brexit - the sonic screwdriver approach


Michel Barnier, walking the border
between Ireland and Northern Ireland
with representatives of the Irish government
One of the big questions raised by this week's draft withdrawal agreement (and a hundred documents and meetings before it) is "How do we avoid a return to the borders of the past?". Or, as it's normally put now: "How do we avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?". All sides have stated that they want the border to continue to be as open as it is today and, as we know, if "everybody wants it" and "it's in everybody's interests" then it will happen.

Theresa May was interrogated on the subject by the House of Commons Liaison Committee - a daunting assembly of the chairs of all the Commons select committees (though there are usually only about a dozen of them on any particular occasion). As the Times reported, "Asked about her government’s plans to avoid a hard border the British prime minister refused to rule out the use of cameras to monitor people and goods between the Republic and the North". But then "Pressed by Yvette Cooper, a senior Labour MP and chairwoman of the home affairs committee, on whether she could confirm numberplate recognition would not be used, Mrs May said: 'We have said that there will be no physical infrastructure in relation to Northern Ireland. We have put forward a number of suggestions as to how we think that border issue can be addressed'".


Those suggestions can be found in papers issued last summer on customs arrangements and specifically Northern Ireland and Ireland. A major suggestion for the border is what's usually referred to as "technology", which is taken to mean online registration of shipments, with VAT and customs duties being treated as an accounting process, plus the recognition of the largest companies as "trusted traders" who are assumed not to need stopping for customs checks.

That doesn't cover everyone of course, and former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern sums the scheme up as follows (see Give the impression of doing no work until it's far too late): "Our economy is relatively small, a huge amount of the trade is multinationals; it should be possible, I think, to do that by technology," Then: "But of course, when you come down to agriculture and smaller items, I don’t think technology would work. One thing we do not want, can’t have, is back to a physical border.” And then: "Theresa May, take her at her word, she’s confidently said she doesn't want a physical border, the EU don’t want a physical border, the Irish Government don’t. So you’re left down with the one alternative — to make technology work in most cases and to throw a blind eye to those areas that can’t come in within technology". The number of border crossings which would have to attract the blind eye (though obviously not the volume or value of goods in transit) has been estimated at 80%.

The proposals have been rejected as inadequate, unworkable or "magical thinking" by the Irish government and EU negotiators, probably because there is little detail. Brexiters pour scorn on this, accusing everybody of just being negative. After all, they say, other countries have frictionless borders - look at Switzerland and its neighbours, Norway and Sweden, Canada and the USA. They don't always recognise that Switzerland has free movement and is in the Schengen zone (people cross borders as well as goods) and has a raft of bilateral agreements replicating much of the single market and easing customs. Neither do they mention that both Norway and Sweden are inside the single market. And how frictionless are those borders anyway?



That's a border post. You know, the kind that nobody wants on the Irish border. "Zollabfertigung" means "customs clearance". The evidence that Hoey and the rest of the committee heard from the head of Swiss customs demonstrated that the vast majority of personal travel between Switzerland and its neighbours involves no stopping, and the vast majority of trade is done by pre-notification, trusted traders, risk assessment and technology, like cameras and ANPR. That's the vast majority, not all. There are stops, there are checks, and occasionally there are follow-ups away from the border.

But, the Brexiters cry, the EU itself has done the work... and they refer to a report called Smart Border 2.0 - Avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland for Customs control and the free movement of persons. It's not clear that they've read it though. 

(Incidentally, another Brexiter line is that neither Ireland nor the UK wants a border at all; it's "the EU forcing Ireland to erect checkpoints". However, this favoured report says "the withdrawal of the UK from the EU will create a requirement for some form of border controls on both sides of the Irish border" which presumably refers to the international legal context as set out in the rather technical Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947) which effectively states that either you have a border or you form part of a customs union.)

Smart Border 2.0 seems a good report, with useful data such as numbers of person and vehicle movements across the border, and studies such as the Swiss, Norwegian etc cases mentioned above. But what it sees as eliminating a "hard border" seems rather different from May & co's idea. To take the list of features from the executive summary (comments in round brackets come from elsewhere in the report) and [comments in square brackets are my additions]:

Free Movement of persons under CTA (Common Travel Area):
  • Free movement lanes at major border crossings for eligible people covered under CTA (special lanes at major crossings, minor crossings completely open)
  • Use of enhanced driver's licenses [this is a US notion; is it relevant here?] and RFID (Radio Frequency Identification Device) capabilities [the range at which such devices can be read varies with the chosen technology]
  • Use of ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) at manned and unmanned border crossings (for example, at unmanned crossings to identify vehicles which should present at a manned border crossing) 
  • Requirement for people not eligible under CTA to present at a manned border crossing (if such a person uses another crossing they're considered to have entered illegally)
  • One check: at jurisdiction of entry [I assume this means that everything can always be done at the border]
  • Creation of a frequent travellers program for people not eligible under the CTA
  • Legal basis for collaboration and data exchange between Ireland and Northern Ireland/UK
Create a low-friction border for the movement of goods by:
  • A bilateral EU-UK agreement regulating an advanced Customs cooperation that avoids duplication and where UK and Irish Customs can undertake inspections on behalf of each other
  • Mutual recognition of Authorized Economic Operators (AEO)
  • A Customs-to-Customs technical agreement on exchange of risk data
  • Pre-registration of operators (AEO) and people (Commercial Travellers programme in combination with a Certified Taxable Person programme)
  • Identification system by the border
  • A Single Window (this is an international standard for information management between the private sector and government in relation to import and export) with one-stop-shop-elements (coordinated border management approach where businesses, at import and/or export, have a single contact with one government agency also representing other agencies at the release of goods [I assume this would cover things like (phyto)sanitary checks on farm produce])
  • A Unique Consignment reference number (UCR) (A specific number regulated by a standard from the World Customs Organization that follows a consignment through its life cycle in the global supply chain, making it possible for governments to identify and follow a specific consignment from a risk and compliance perspective)
  • A simplified Customs declaration system (100% electronic) with re-use of export data for imports
  • Mobile Control and Inspection Units
  • Technical surveillance of border (CCTV, ANPR etc)
A Swiss border crossing
There's a lot of technology there, and lots of structures to be designed, implemented and staffed, but the report does talk in terms of it being available by March 2019, and also serving as a model for future UK/EU working, so I'll leave that for now. For the purposes of this post I'll just point out that here we have:
  • manned crossings
  • free movement lanes (and therefore other lanes where you have to stop)
  • radio frequency readers for people via their passports, and for goods
  • ANPR and CCTV
This is infrastructure at the border - quite a lot of it - including several items which the UK government has said will not be present, or Northern Irish representatives have said must not be there.

Then there are significant logistical and legal agreements, including:
  • an agreement that UK and Irish Customs can undertake inspections on each other's behalf
  • mobile control and inspection units (at the Swiss border the two countries' people can operate on either side of the border; they even have helicopters)
When these measures were mentioned in the evidence session with Swiss and Norwegian customs staff, eyebrows were raised and committee members expressed some doubt that they were appropriate for this case.

In addition there are several requirements for data sharing, which in other areas raises the question of which legal jurisdiction is to be used, and which court or other body is required to settle disputes.

This is an idea of "smart borders" that claims to bring together international standards, best practice and new technologies to create low-friction borders that support fast and secure movement of persons and goods. Coordinated border management, with trusted trader and trusted traveller programmes, it says, can significantly reduce compliance requirements and make borders almost friction free [my emphasis]. That sounds very much like the Swiss or Norwegian/Swedish borders, or even the idea presented to cabinet by Boris Johnson (and then publicly rejected by his boss) which considered: "Even if a hard border is reintroduced, we would expect to see 95% + of goods pass the border [without] checks."

It doesn't sound quite like the Irish border someone ordered.

And finally

Why did I mention a sonic screwdriver? Robert Shrimsley in the Financial Times wonders whether Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and other leading Brexiters are big fans of Dr Who, because he observes "much evidence of sonic screwdriver strategy (the all-purpose get out of jail free card for scriptwriters) in their thinking. Their mystical faith in technological solutions is most obvious in discussions about the Irish border". If you can get round the paywall, it's worth a read.


Wednesday, 7 February 2018

All of the good bits and none of the bad bits... please


Bernard Jenkin MP, chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee in the Commons, was quoted this morning as saying "It would be utterly perverse for the EU to impose tariffs on trade between the UK and the European Union and I don't think they would be so destructive [as] to do that".

He was interviewed with Ken Clarke (there to play the soft Brexit to Jenkin's hard) on the Radio 4 Today programme about a letter from the British Chamber of Commerce. The BCC's Director General Adam Marshall was warning the prime minister that "patience is wearing thin" - business is exasperated by the lack of a unified government position on a future UK-EU relationship.

The current live issue is customs, with May rejecting future membership of either the current EU customs union or a possible alternative customs union such as the EU has with Turkey or a smaller country like Andorra. She will happily discuss a customs arrangement or a customs partnership of course, as discussed in a paper the government published last August (it was labelled "magical thinking" by EU commentators and seemed to be quietly forgotten, but has been rediscovered with a new year).

Swiss borders with EU countries -
much of regular trade is handled digitally
but there are still checks. 
Jenkin's point is frequently argued - if a barrier to trade follows Brexit it's the EU's fault, because the UK has no intention of doing anything against our joint interests. Two points there:
  • None of this would be happening without a decision to leave the EU; it's May's Article 50 letter that started it all.
  • What would bring about barriers to trade would be failure to reach an agreement which eliminates them, plus the automatic operation of WTO rules. If there is no UK-EU Free Trade Agreement, the EU is duty bound to apply the same tariffs, quotas etc as it does to any other country with Most Favoured Nation status.
Then there's the Irish border, which Brexiters claim will be exactly as easy and open as it is now unless the Republic or, more likely, "the EU" decide to make it difficult.

But again, we started it, and May intends to take us out of the legal system which makes the border no more than a notional line on a map. All sorts of organisational and technological wheezes could be used to ease the waits, but without an agreement otherwise there will be a border, and EU law and WTO rules will require it to be managed.

Moving beyond tariffs, there are non-tariff barriers (NTBs) - differences in regulation and Rules of Origin. If May's customs arrangement, partnership or wotsit doesn't cover how UK-made and EU-made products are counted for onward export, and if she insists on retaining the right to diverge from EU rules, or fails to reach an agreement at all, there will be barriers. Who will have raised them? The EU won't have changed anything but we'll have become a third country, we'll have put ourselves outside the walls.

Everybody's looking to barriers between the UK and EU, but there are also hundreds of agreements we have with other countries as a member of the EU. Some are full Free Trade Agreements (like the one which guarantees Dan Hannan his tariff-free Chilean wine) and some just harmonisation of testing standards, but many of them are there to ease trade. As Fionna O'Leary points out, there are 142 with our largest single trading partner, the USA, of which around 50 have an impact on trade. If we fail to carry those over, by agreement with the EU and the US as necessary, are we going to blame the US for "erecting barriers to trade"?






Letter to the Laura Kuenssberg programme - Farage, Musk and "free speech"

Dear Ms Kuenssberg, I hear from BBC TV and Radio News that you will this morning be giving a platform to Nigel Farage to defend attacks on t...