During the referendum, Brexiters tried to avoid talking about the irish Border; when they had to they assured us that it was no problem at all. That was just like they said that the negotiations with the EU would be the easiest in history. Now, that both have been exposed as lies, they still try to claim Britain somehow has the upper hand in negotiations, and that the EU are simply negotiating, and will collapse at the last minute. That is simply delusional attempts to avoid recognising that their entire world view was shown to be wrong. On the Irish Border they continue to claim that there is no problem, and that trade across it can continue with the use of some unknown magical electronic systems.
In pursuit of this later claim, the Brexiters refer to the fact that different EU countries, including Britain and Ireland have different duties, and VAT on various products, and yet this poses no problem to frictionless trade between them. That is true, though it does not prevent fraudulent VAT and Customs and Excise returns where there is left to self-policing. Nor does it prevent smuggling of goods across borders, in order to take advantage of variations in those VAT and Excise rates. However, all this is completely besides the point. The issues relating to different countries being in different customs regimes, or having different VAT and Excise rates are fairly minimal, and can indeed be dealt with by electronic systems, as well as policing to reduce smuggling etc. The real issue does not relate to the fact that Britain and Northern Ireland will be in a different Customs Union to ireland and the rest of the EU, it relates to the fact that they will belong to different single markets, and that therefore, they will have completely different sets of rules and regulations dealing with standards of goods and services, both in terms of their own final production, and in terms of the production of the components used in their production. No amount of so far non-existent electronic systems, is going to deal with that. The only way to deal with that is to determine what goods and services can cross borders, and which can't, and then to ensure that is actually carried out at the border.
Take something like a chicken pie produced in the North of Ireland, to be shipped to the Republic. The EU has single market rules and regulations relating to workers rights, to consumer rights and to protection of the environment, which ensure that its objectives are attained, and also that different firms operating within the single market do so, on a level playing field. Suppose, as an extreme example, a firm in Northern Ireland, after Brexit, and the fulfilment of the Brextremists wish for a bonfire of workers' rights, is able to employ child labour to produce such pies. That would give it an unfair advantage against EU, firms, including those in the Republic, where the employment of child labour is prohibited. The single market is intended to prevent such divergences in basic conditions, which enable firms operating with poorer conditions to gain a competitive advantage over those that abide by some minimum standards.
It does not have to be so extreme, as the employment of child labour. The EU introduced the Working-Time Directive for a similar purpose, so that firms had to abide by some minimum standard in terms of how much they overwork their employees. Britain, of course, under Thatcher, objected to having to abide by such minimum standards, and obtained an exemption for Britain from the Directive. That gives an indication of the direction the Tories would quickly whish to go in, after Brexit, just as the Brextremists have been keen to demand the right to be able to define regulatory alignment as really meaning regulatory divergence. It is the strategy of those like Gove, in supporting May's Deal, who just want to get out of the EU, so that they can then begin this process of regulatory divergence, which will then require that the UK break entirely with the EU, thereby achieving their goal of a hard Brexit.
If firms in Britain/Northern Ireland, for example, introduce working-regulations that mean that employers do not need to provide basic things like a minimum number of paid holidays, maternity and paternity pay and so on, that would give them a clear advantage over EU firms that do have to provide such minimum standards. Because Brexit will inevitably weaken the British economy, it will also inevitably lead to Britain attempting to introduce more and more of these penny-pinching measures, as a means of British capital attempting to maintain its profits and competitiveness. That will particularly be the case under the Tories, but under Corbyn, the economic weakness of the economy, brought about by Brexit, will lead to the same thing. This is why Brexit represents an economic and political attack on the whole working-class. If British capital is led to introduce these limitations on British workers wages, conditions and rights, so as to compensate for its diminished profitability, then immediately, firms in Britain's immediate neighbours, with whom it trades will also attempt to introduce such attacks on their workers too, so as to retain their competitive advantage. As this race to the bottom on pay, conditions and rights proceeds, so that attack on workers spreads out across the globe, so that US firms attempt to do the same to match their EU counterparts, and the Chinese Stalinists do the same to maintain the profits of Chinese firms and so on.
Trying to keep track of which chicken pie was made where, and what conditions the workers in that particular factory enjoyed, and whether they complied with EU standards, is impossible to keep track of without a border, and no amount of electronic systems is going to police such trade. But, that is just in relation to the actual regulations relating to workers' rights in the Northern ireland factory, producing the chicken pie. We could multiply that up to look also at the environmental regulations that such pies have to comply with in the EU, and whether their production outside the EU complied with those standards. Then there is whether the firm complies with the EU's minimum standards for consumer rights.
But, even that has only touched the surface of the problem. The chicken pie itself does not get made from nothing. It requires pastry, chicken meat, gravy, possibly mushrooms, and various other ingredients. Nearly all these separate ingredients will come from different suppliers, and many may come from suppliers based in different countries. Within the EU, this is not a particular problem, because only products that comply with EU regulations can be imported. But, Britain will not be in the EU, and so not bound by such regulations. A firm in Britain and Northern Ireland could buy in pastry (or flour and so on to make the pastry) from anywhere in the world, and whether that flour or pastry then complied with EU standards would be anyone's guess, and pretty impossible to keep track of. For example, Britain might buy in chicken meat from Mexico, which itself had been processed from chlorinated chickens, imported into Mexico from the US. The EU bans chlorinated chicken, and so this would breach EU regulations. But, with Britain and Northern Ireland outside the EU, and free to buy in chicken meat from Mexico, who would know that its chicken pies contained this chicken that was banned by the EU.
But, again, that only touches the surface. Who would know whether the Mexican workers that processed the chicken had the required rights and so on that the EU requires, in relation to the products it allows into the single market? Who would know whether those Mexican firms comply with the required consumer and environmental protections? The EU itself, can ensure compliance with that, in terms of products it allows in directly from such third parties, because it is dealing with trade agreements relating to its huge economy, but it too then has border controls in relation to the import of these approved products to ensure compliance. There is no way the EU could sub-contract that function to the EU, by allowing the UK to import goods and services willy-nilly from across the globe, which it then either sells on directly, or else which form components of its final production, which is sold on into the EU, without any kind of border checking.
And, that is only to deal with one component of the chicken pie. The same considerations apply to GM crops used in the production of wheat that then goes into the production of the flour that goes into the pastry used in the pie. And, this is for something fairly simple like a chicken pie. Imagine the complexity involved in a more complex product, comprising thousand of components, all produced in different locations, and which moves rapidly across borders, back and forth, as these different components are added to say, a car engine, or a gearbox, which in turn is just one component of a car!
It is all of these different transactions, and the requirement for their production to comply with the rules and regulations of the single market that is the issue at stake in relation to the Irish border, not the issue of the Customs Union. That is why Labour is mistaken in thinking that the question of the irish Border is dealt with by Britain being part of the Customs Union. It isn't. It can only be dealt with by being a member of the Single Market, or by agreeing to permanently accept the rules and regulations of the single market. It is also why the Brexiters continually talk about the Customs Union, and fail to talk about the real issue which is compliance with single market requirements.
There is a simple fact, which is that if Britain does not remain in the Customs Union, and more importantly the single market, then there cannot be frictionless trade between Britain and the EU, including Northern Ireland and the Republic. The EU is quite right to say that it does not want a border in Ireland. That is a requirement of the Good Friday Agreement. If Britain does not agree to a deal with the EU that keeps it in the single market and Customs Union, or keeps it tied to those regulations permanently, then it must either accept the backstop, or accept that it would de facto have ensured that a border must be erected in Ireland. It would by its actions have broken a legally enforceable, international treaty, i.e. the Good Friday Agreement.
There are only two courses of action the EU can then follow. It can demand that Britain hold a border poll in Northern Ireland, so that the people of Northern Ireland, who voted by a 2:1 majority to remain in the EU, can give effect to that vote, by voting to become part of a UNited Ireland, rather than see he economy of the province devastated, or else the EU could do what it says it does not want to do, but what Britain's actions would force it to do, which is to erect a hard border in Ireland, and to police it using EU Border Agency personnel, and if necessary by EU military personnel. In other words, Britain would then have the army of its large and powerful neighbour sitting dominantly on its border.
No comments:
Post a Comment