From the Daily Mail:
Under the [customs] partnership, officials would track shipments into the UK and collect tariffs for Brussels on goods ending up in the EU. Mr Johnson said this would simply lead to more red tape.
"It’s totally untried and would make it very, very difficult to do free trade deals," he added, "If you have the new customs partnership, you have a crazy system whereby you end up collecting the tariffs on behalf of the EU at the UK frontier.
"If the EU decides to impose punitive tariffs on something the UK wants to bring in cheaply there’s nothing you can do...
"That’s not taking back control of your trade policy, it’s not taking back control of your laws, it’s not taking back control of your borders and it’s actually not taking back control of your money either, because tariffs would get paid centrally back to Brussels."
If you think about it, it is indeed a really stupid idea that will make things more complicated, not simpler. As he says, if the EU wants to tax imports, that's for them to sort out. And in turn, we can set our own tariffs (preferably at zero, but that's another debate) on things we import.
In any event, EU member states and the UK, like most countries, have the concept of customs-free transit. So if goods from Country X are taken off the boat here and put straight onto another boat to Country Y, they are not subject to any UK tariffs and Country Y just treats those goods as if they had arrived directly from country X. Which would sort out most of the perceived problem.
X leavers
1 hour ago
10 comments:
Yes. But you are missing the point. This has sod all to do with tariffs or whatever. It has everything to do with sustaining complexity and to make it seem very difficult for us to Leave. Hence is all about keeping us in the bureaucratic gravy train of the EU.
I note that a big minus point for him is it "would make it very, very difficult to do free trade deals,". AFAICS that's a plus point.
Bayard. Why?
L: "sustaining complexity" Love it as a catch phrase, but sadly, yes.
B, indeed, why? Or do you mean from their point of view? Best free trade deal is unilateral, which I think would be possible as an EFTA member, see here.
Ain't gonna happen anyway.
... What protection teaches us is to do to ourselves in time of peace what enemies seek to do to us in time of war
- HG
JH, I bloody well hope not.
P, indeed.
L, MW, because "free trade deals" usually have f*ck all to do with free trade. Trade deals are usually a way of favouring powerful vested interests in the two countries concerned, AFAICS.
Actually, the WTO system means that "free trade deals" are the only way any country can give preferential treatment to other countries.
B, yes, "free trade deals" are usually just bilateral protectionism. But better make our own that be trapped inside EU bilateral protectionism.
GC, yes and no. You can be a WTO member and have unilateral free trade. Which would be the best outcome.
Post a Comment