25/04/2018
Yesterday (and not for the first time), I touched upon the history of the EU's customs union, introduced with the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and completed on 1 June 1968, when the last tariffs on goods moving between member states were abolished.
But,
as I remarked, this by no means led to the abolition of frontier posts or the abandonment of border checks. And, as I was able to show, there is plenty of photographic evidence of the continued presence of frontier posts.
Today's picture shows part of very substantial border post straddling the German-Belgian border at Lichtenbusch, near Aachen, on Bundesautobahn 44 which becomes the E40 on the drive into Belgium, taken in 1979. The facility
exists to this day, currently pressed into service as a truck stop.
Interestingly, two years after this photograph was taken, the European Commission published
COM(81) final "on the state of the internal market". It noted that:
The customs union, the implementation of which is intended to ensure the, internal market, is proving to be increasingly inadequate for ' the achievement of this aim. The substance, of what has been achieved is instead being, jeopardized and undermined by the fact that old barriers have survived for too long and new barriers have been created.
The Commission went on to observe that, twenty-three years after the founding of the EEC and thirteen years after the Customs Union was set up, the public was "justifiably annoyed" that customs clearance procedures within the Community were scarcely any different from customs procedures with non-member countries. In commercial terms, it said, these procedures increase the cost of goods by around 5-10 percent.
Considering that the objective of a Common Market is integration, it added, the application of customs procedures to goods crossing internal frontiers would seem to be an anachronism dating back to the days before the Community. And on that basis, it began the process of developing the legal framework which would emerge as the Single European Act, leading to the completion of the internal market and the abolition of frontier posts be December 1992.
This adds still more evidence to the undeniable thesis that the EU's customs union contributed nothing to the abolition of internal frontiers and their attendant border checks. Indeed, the Commission rejected the idea that revenue collection was a valid and necessary part of border control, and concentrated on measures to eliminate non-tariff barriers. These were the real reason for border checks.
Yet, 37 years further on from this communication, we have the
Financial Times, totally oblivious to what went before,
opining that "the customs union is imperative for Britain's future prosperity".
"The conclusion of a lengthy debate among policymakers, customs and trade experts and businesses", it says, "should be clear". In order to "fulfil its promises to keep the Irish border open, and to maintain Britainâs sophisticated just-in-time supply chains with the continent, the UK should seek a new customs union with the EU that in essence replicates current arrangements".
This is the considered conclusion of what passes for the UK's premier financial journal and one, by its own reckoning, is considered to be an authority on EU matters. From such a source, the lack of understanding of the very basics of the nature of EU trade and the supporting structures is profoundly disturbing.
The newspaper does, however, at least doff a cap to the need to remove (some) non-tariff barriers, declaring that: "On top of this, it [the UK government] should seek to keep those EU regulations, particularly in food and agriculture, needed to reduce the need for hygiene inspections as well as checks for customs tariffs and rules of origin".
Again, the lack of understanding is profoundly disturbing. Many times on this blog, I have pointed out that, in order to export live animals and products (including food) to the Union, the exporting nation and its "establishments" must comply with the full gamut of EU regulations. But compliance alone does not eliminate the need for "hygiene inspection" at the EU's external borders.
The
Financial Times should know this. If its editor and staff had read the blog, they would know it â not least from
this report, to which I have cross-referred many times. There are also my Monographs. Two are especially relevant,
here and
here.
Certainly, the
FT is well aware of the blog and the editor knows me, having rung me on occasions to ask for my input on some issues. That they choose to ignore the analyses from one of the foremost UK experts on the EU's "official controls" is nothing short of arrogance.
There are those who say that, if only I took a more emollient, conciliatory approach, I would be listened to more. This is not convincing when we hear
Jacob Rees-Mogg describe Theresa May's plans for a customs partnership as "completely cretinous" - with not the slightest diminution in media interest.
That aside, we do rather tire of the assumption that we should politely blog away to ourselves in our appointed corner, and if we are very good and well-mannered, the great ones will eventually drop in offer us a few patronising words of encouragement and occasionally steal out stuff.
Bluntly, these people are ignorant, on the one part, because they want to be. On the other part, they are able to maintain their ignorance because there is no penalty for misinforming the public and displaying their disdain for facts. That much is evident in the
FT's assertion that, "For the UK to be outside a customs union would undoubtedly mean some kind of infrastructure at the Irish border".
This is simply not true, yet its foolish writer goes on to say that, "Extensive investigations by a parliamentary committee have established that neither of the much-touted EU border arrangements between France and Switzerland, or Sweden and Norway, remove the need for physical border infrastructure".
Indeed that is the case, but then to assert that the adoption of a customs union would remove the need for infrastructure is a staggering
non sequitur. As I have observed, that there is a physical border between Sweden and Norway owes much to policy decisions taken by both countries which, if made differently, could remove even the vestigial controls that we see.
If the UK so decided, by adopting the full gamut of the EEA
acquis - which would include across the board abolition of tariffs â and certain other measures, an invisible border between the Republic and Northern Ireland could be secured. But one of those measures is not a customs union, as the EU experience so adequately demonstrates.
However, such intelligence is not for the
FT. From behind its bastion of ignorance, it opines:
Brexiters who oppose a customs union have had two years to propose a technologically and politically workable alternative. They have failed. The imperatives of promoting a dynamic British economy and an open Irish border point inexorably to the UK being in a customs union with the EU. Mrs May should summon her political courage and seek to safeguard Britainâs future.
Nevertheless, the arrogance and self-importance of the legacy media and its political handmaidens knows no bounds. But, if you want another example, you can have the issue-illiterate piece by
William Hague in yesterday's
Telegraph.
In the next two months, he writes, the Brexit process reaches a crossroads where the irreconcilable requirements of assuaging business sentiment, securing future trading freedom and maintaining an open border with Ireland meet and have to be sacrificed, amended or assured.
With that, he declares: "The question of whether the UK stays in a Customs Union with the EU is integral to all those issues, and thus is becoming the fundamental and decisive controversy".
With not enough wit to understand that a customs union is completely irrelevant, he reminds us that, a few weeks ago, he drew attention to the attractions of a "partial customs union", as set out in
a paper from the Institute of Directors.
Despite being a facile, ill-considered stratagem, which I
easily demolished, Hague averred that this was "a serious attempt to find an answer" to the problem of securing an EU-UK trade framework.
This had author Allie Renison
twittering about how "honoured" she was to see William Hague's reference, adding that the
FT leader (which I've analysed above) had linked to it as well.
From such interventions we get useful insight. If you are intent in producing sound, high quality work, your expose it to the toughest critics that you can find, and then fight your corner. The work can only be improved as a result.
But the likes of Renison and her media friends don't do this. When they expose their work to the public gaze, all they want is unconditional praise. Thus, they surround their work with defensive walls to exclude the critics, while they ignore dissenting voices â often weaponising indignation as a tactic for disengaging when the critics get too close.
By this means, we are being swamped by a sterile, futile debate which is distracting us from the important issue of devising a credible response to the EU's demands, and setting up a Brexit settlement which will serve the needs of the UK.
That is the price we are paying when we have an establishment which is out of control and which elevates its own ignorance above the pursuit of knowledge and decides â despite evidence to the contrary â that it knows best.
More than anything else, it is their arrogance which is bringing us down. How ironic it should be that it boils down to this fatuous debate about a customs union, which more than anything else could, illustrates the inadequacy of our "top people" to get to grips with the issues.
The customs union, then, has become the litmus test, the Quatermass "mark on the arm" which can show up the
ignorati for what they are. The one thing you can guarantee is that not one of them will admit their ignorance. These superior beings are so far above even the thought that they could be wrong, that us plebs must only be allowed to stand back and look at them with awe.
Sooner rather than later, though, the whole thing will come crashing down around them. What will the poor things do then, I wonder, as we ask them to explain why they have so easily devoted their energies to wrecking Brexit. And I guess we won't be too gentle about the way we demand answers.
