06/04/2018
In terms of technical detail on Brexit, the
Financial Times often leads the way when it comes to the legacy media. And that goes to show just how far they are all behind when we see in the current edition of the
FT a story we first ran in October 2017 â five months ago - and again in early March of this year.
This was the
disturbing report of how ferry companies were increasing their commercial services from Dublin (and potentially other Irish ports) to mainland Europe, thereby cutting out the UK land bridge and reducing the reliance of Irish traders on the UK.
That was in the October report, when I had picked up the news that the ferry company CLdN SA was preparing to deploy its newly-built ro-ro ferry, named
Celine, to the port of Dublin. This 234m giant, with the capacity of 8,000 lane metres (equivalent to nearly 500 articulated trucks), had originally been intended to serve the UK-Belgian route but had been pressed into service on the Dublin-Zeebrugge route, by-passing the UK route to the continent via Holyhead.
Then, in the
March report, I noted that
Celine had a brand new sister in the
Delphine, which had just made a maiden call to Dublin Port. It was also scheduled to serve the Rotterdam-Zeebrugge-Dublin route.
Only now, however, do we get the
FT giving us
exactly the same news, this under the headline, "Shipping groups boost Ireland-EU routes ahead of Brexit", with the sub-heading: "Freight hauliers plan to bypass UK ports as concern grows about queues and red tape".
The only thing of interest that the newspaper is then able to add is details of a survey last year, indicating that 57 percent of Irish exporters could supply EU countries by shipping directly to continental ports, if transit time through the UK increased or costs rose.
It cites Verona Murphy, president of the Irish Road Haulage Association, who says that businesses (rather predictably) fear long delays at UK ports if the UK government proceeds with plans to leave the Single Market.
"We've got three expected checks: customs, the department of agriculture and then immigration. It's going to be huge. From our perspective it just couldn't be worse,â says Murphy. Transit times on direct routes were longer but would offer more certainty over trucking schedules in the event of new checks at UK ports, she adds. "You know what time you get on [the direct ferry] and you know what time you get off, and you haven't left the eurozone, so you get a green light at customs".
At least now, the main story is out of the EUReferednum.com ghetto and in a form that the rest of the media can copy and pretend it's theirs. In this dog-eat-dog world, they seem quite happy to plagiarise each other.
As to the timing, this couldn't be better â as the
Irish Times conveniently
reminds us with a story headed: "Britain urged to come up with a fresh Brexit Border plan", the sub-heading telling us that: "sources say the UK's latest proposals on the issue are similar to already-rejected plans".
This is a run-down of the state of the negotiations between the EU and the UK on the Irish border, which began on Monday last week in Brussels, with the EU team led by the EU's deputy negotiator Sabine Weyand. They are scheduled for six weeks.
The first week has been devoted to talks on customs and food and agriculture inspections, plus the use of the UK as a "land bridge" between Ireland and the continent. The latter addresses precisely the issue the Irish are already seeking to circumvent - preserving Irish exporters' ability to send their goods to Europe via the UK rather than by a longer route.
Sadly, it would appear that the UK team, led by Olly Robbins, has returned to the fray with almost exactly the same plan originally proposed in August, based on technological solutions that were dismissed by the EU as "magical thinking". Predictably, it is now being urged "to come up with new plan" - the only way the deadlock is going to be broken.
However, says the
Irish Times, there is creeping concern that with less than a year to go Britain is no closer to finding a solution, with no ideas considered developed enough to form the framework for a post-Brexit plan.
At least though, Olly Robbins seems to be making some progress. He has acknowledged that so-called "non-tariff barriers" and not customs checks, are the main stumbling block on the trade side of the equation. These include the need for food hygiene and agricultural checks to accommodate the continued free flow of lamb, beef and dairy products criss-crossing the border.
Yet, reality is a very long way from getting an airing. The UK side is suggesting that regulatory "equivalence" on both sides of the border would ensure livestock, food and pharmaceuticals checks could remain the same, with veterinary and phytosanitary checks continuing to be executed on-site in farms and food processing plants.
But, with almost tragic understatement, we are told that the EU does not accept standards would be maintained by a voluntary alignment. It is "unwilling" to make an exception for Ireland just to ensure an open border.
The reality, of course, is that the EU's "official controls" are non-negotiable. And that means that, even if "equivalence" is recognised, the full regime will apply, including a requirement that foods of animal origin are presented to border inspection posts for veterinary clearance.
But not only is the British side ignoring this minor detail, it is also insisting on the future right to diverge from EU law. This has the EU concerned about opening the floodgates to chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef if the UK agrees a free-trade deal with the US that includes agriculture.
With this entertainment keeping the negotiators focused, there is more fun to come over talks on the treatment of EU citizens in Northern Ireland who move between the region and the Republic and between the region and the rest of Britain.
Then, to add to the pressure, while six weeks have been allocated to the talks, there is to be a "stocktake" on 18 April. The UK is being expected to come up with a new plan by then or the EU will insist on the backstop option of full regulatory alignment north and south of the border. This, of course, is something Mrs May has said would not be acceptable to a British prime minister.
But such is the distance between reality and the British stance that no one can predict where this is going to lead. Yet, dominating the talks is the underlying ethos that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The Irish question, as always, remains the crux of the negotiations and, while reality might be currently on hold, it cannot be denied forever. It looks as if these new super ferries are going to be busy.
