EU Referendum


Brexit: the price of ignorance


19/05/2018




A propos
yesterday's post, I was entertained to see an article in The Times yesterday, informing us that BBC listeners "are ditching politics for classical music in the morning", with the flagship Radio 4 Today having shed 65,000 listeners in a year. But I was especially taken by this observation in the paper, which told us:
The Today programme's audience slip comes amid a debate about the show's direction under Sarah Sands, who took over the editorship last May. Ms Sands sought to refocus the programme on "revelation and illumination" with more in-depth features. Some staff have expressed doubts about the prominence given to what she has described as "girls' stuff".
Given the irritating propensity of the BBC of having its journalists interviewing each other (very often repeating what the presenter has just said), and the exponential increase in high-pitched ladies giving their all, we live in expectation of seeing the BBC motto changed and simplified from its current: "Nation Shall Speak Peace Unto Nation". In future, it will read: "Girlie Shall Shriek Unto Girlie".

Back in what passes for the real world, we see a press release from the Department of Transport, announcing "new plans to keep Kent moving during Channel disruption".

In a nutshell, this is an upgrade of the standing plan for "Operation Stack". It will allow traffic to travel in both directions between junctions 8 and 9 while lorries are being queued for the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel. This means drivers can access these junctions, rather than being diverted onto smaller local roads.

There is also to be a contraflow on the northbound carriageway, which will be available for use by early 2019, if there is ever disruption to cross-Channel traffic and lorries have to be queued. Highways England will start work soon on improving the northbound hard shoulder of the M20, to allow for two-way traffic to be contained within one carriageway, enabling the road to remain open.

The Department for Transport is also setting out plans to improve overnight lorry parking, so that fewer lorries will be left on local roads or parked in lay-bys overnight. There are plans from private developers for an extra 1,000 additional lorry parking spaces across the country, which will provide benefits across the UK, particularly in the south-east.

Missing completely from the press release is any mention of Brexit, and it might be sheer coincidence that the news should appear at this stage. But it could be taken as a belated recognition by government that disruption at the ports will occur, and especially at Dover and the Channel Tunnel.

The DfT, however, is not the only organisation making plans. We have also seen reports that a multi-million-pound upgrade to the Port of Grangemouth in east Stirlingshire is on schedule to be finished later this year. This, it is said, should "Brexit-proof" its operations.

The project includes container terminal surfacing work, a new terminal operating system, warehouse development and investment in ship-to-shore cranes. On completion, the port will be able to cater for any additional demands on container storage times as a result of border controls necessitated by Brexit.

Significantly, Grangemouth is Scotland's largest reefer port – handling temperature-controlled containers, principally from the country's fresh food exporters. The use of refrigerated containers has expanded the season for shipping of produce such as potatoes, cheese, fish and seafood to markets across the world.

And it is in terms of imports that we can anticipate substantial growth, post Brexit. As Ro-Ro traffic hits the buffers, it is likely that container traffic will take up the slack but, with the increased handling time, refrigerated capacity will be essential.

Usefully, there is already a Border Inspection Post in Grangemouth, as well as a Designated Point of Entry for some cargoes, both operated by Falkirk Council. These are facilities which are not available at the main Channel ports.

However, if there are moves to deal with surface transport issues – even if they may be inadequate – huge uncertainty remains in the aviation sector, despite the attempts of some pundits to play down the problems.

The latest broadside comes from Henrik Hololei, director general for Mobility and Transport at the European Commission, via Reuters.

Hololei was speaking at the CAPA Centre for Aviation conference in Dublin and told his audience that the clock was ticking and that the effects of Brexit on aviation "could be significant" after 29 March 2019. He added: "The possibility still exists that on day one no flights operate. It hasn’t disappeared".

One of the key problems here, he explained, is that before any negotiations could be done specifically on aviation, or any other sector, the overall framework of Britain’s departure had to first be agreed. The only thing clear, he said, "is that this is a very sad chapter currently being written".

Nevertheless, this candid approach is at odds with the delusional "it'll be alright on the night" stance taken by ministers and many others. There is a strong tendency to believe that, because the consequences of an uncontrolled Brexit are so devastating, that the UK government (or even the EU) will take action to stop them happening.

Doubtless, the UK, the European Commission and Member State governments will be implementing mitigating measures right up to and beyond B-Day, but unlike the appliance, not everything can be washed away at the touch of a button.

Ministers, officials, the media and the public in general will need to come to terms with a unalterable truth that the EU is a rules-bound organisation. This limits its flexibility to respond to Brexit problems, especially as its other trading partners will be watching closely and demanding equal treatment in the event that concession are made to the UK.

There is no point in protesting, therefore – as Willie Walsh, CEO of British-Airways owner IAG, has been doing that some measures will be just as damaging to European interests. In such a high-profile, high-visibility event, we must expect EU institutions and Member States to stick to the letter of the EU law.

Nevertheless, one can quite understand why so many people are having difficulty with this. The cumulative effects on the movement of goods to and from EEA member states, after B-Day, are such that it is very hard for me to suggest anything other than complete stoppage.

The natural reaction to that is denial, but it is not until you deconstruct all the different elements that it is possible fully to appreciate what we're letting ourselves in for.

Re-reading the Notice to Stakeholders on EU Food Law, for instance, it is easy for me with direct professional experience of dealing with food imports, and the broad sweep of EU law, to see the implications of what the Commission is writing. For the BBC "girlies" and the Telegraph or Mail hacks, though, it is a different matter.

Here, one reads that, "as of the withdrawal date, the importation of food of animal origin from the United Kingdom into the EU-27 is prohibited, unless certain requirements are met". The first of those requirements is that the United Kingdom is "listed" by the Commission for public and animal health purposes.

And, as we all know, for the "listing" of a third country, Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 853/200438, Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 and Article 8 of Council Directive 2002/99/EC apply.

Specifically, these provisions set out the procedures required for a third country to obtain a "listing", something which cannot be done until the UK is a third country – which will not happen until we have left. And until we apply for listing and the Commission is formally able to list the UK, " the importation of food of animal origin from the United Kingdom into the EU-27 is prohibited". You cannot get clearer than that.

Furthermore, this does not kick in just in the event of a "no deal". It applies equally in the event that we secure a free trade agreement, and anything short of full application of Single Market measures, through EEA participation.

These are the sort of things that the prattling Today programme should be telling us, rather than Ms Sands giving prominence to "girls' stuff". I would like to think that this is why people are deserting the programme – and the legacy media in general.

Either way, the public is not being told the things it needs to be told, and our idle politicians – even those enjoying the resources of parliamentary select committees – are failing to acquaint themselves with the details. And for that, there will be a price to pay – the price of ignorance.