Aurelia Butler

A Northern Ireland minister has ordered a halt to post-Brexit customs checks on agriculture-related goods in the most concrete defiance to date of trading rules put in place when the UK left the EU a year ago.Edwin Poots, the agriculture minister, announced his decision in Belfast on Wednesday after taking legal advice which he said concluded he could go ahead and halt inspections even without the full backing of Northern Ireland’s executive.“I can now direct the checks to cease in the absence of executive approval,” he said, adding the change would start at midnight.The Democratic Unionist party, which Poots briefly led last year and which shares power with the nationalist party Sinn Féin in the Stormont government, vehemently opposes the so-called Northern Ireland protocol, the part of the Brexit agreement that governs trade in the region and put a customs border for goods down the Irish Sea.That customs border was introduced after London and Brussels agreed there would be no return to a trade border on the island of Ireland but the DUP argues that it downgrades Northern Ireland’s status within the UK. Sinn Féin maintains that the protocol offers Northern Ireland the best of both worlds since it remains both within the UK’s internal market and the EU’s single market for goods, and believes it should be respected.Poots said he would present a paper to the executive soon “to seek agreement on the way forward”.There was no immediate response from the European Commission. A spokesperson for the London government told the BBC: “The operation of checks is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive. We have been consistently clear that there are significant problems with the Protocol which urgently need fixing, which is why we are in intensive talks with the EU to find solutions.”Maros Sefcovic, the EU’s Brexit commissioner, has virtual talks scheduled with UK foreign secretary Liz Truss on Thursday as part of long-running negotiations to reform the protocol after complaints it was suffocating trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.British officials said that although Poots had been warning for some time he might suspend checks, the UK government was not given pre-notification. They firmly rejected the idea that Poots’s action was part of any concerted British plan to put pressure on the EU.“We think they are under a legal duty to implement the checks,” said one UK government official while acknowledging that, ultimately, the Northern Ireland protocol was an agreement signed between Britain and the EU.Truss told the Belfast Telegraph newspaper last week during a visit to Northern Ireland that any halting of checks would be “a matter for the Northern Ireland executive to resolve”.An EU diplomat said Brussels was likely to give London time to bring the DUP into line and, if it did not, would probably activate dispute resolution mechanisms. That would take at least six months to rule on and could impose fines and allow EU tariffs on UK goods. Sinn Féin’s Michelle O’Neill, Northern Ireland’s deputy first minister, called Poots’ move a “stunt” ahead of elections due on May 5, and an “attempt by the DUP to unlawfully interfere with domestic and international law”.Dublin was also dismayed. Foreign minister Simon Coveney told parliament it was effectively a breach of international law which he hoped would not be implemented.Jim Allister, leader of the hardline Traditional Unionist Voice party, welcomed the move, saying customs checks “should never have happened”.“There is no place for Northern Ireland to be subject to foreign laws, foreign institutions, foreign courts, a foreign customs zone, foreign single market,” he said.Stephen Kelly, chief executive of business group Manufacturing Northern Ireland, said Poots’ move could face legal challenges. “The first battle could come from within Northern Ireland’s civil service,” he said. More

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday advanced a multibillion-dollar bill aimed at increasing American competitiveness with China and boosting U.S. semiconductor manufacturing, teeing up the legislation for full approval by the chamber this week.Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration has been working to persuade Congress to approve the bill, which includes $52 billion to subsidize semiconductor manufacturing and research, as shortages of the key components used in autos and computers have been exacerbated by supply chain bottlenecks.The Democratic-controlled House approved the rule for the “America Competes Act” by 219 to 203, largely along party lines. House aides said they expected a vote to pass the full measure on Friday, after considering a number of amendments.The bill has several trade provisions and would also authorize $8 billion in U.S. contributions to the Green Climate Fund, established by the Paris Agreement to combat climate change, to help developing countries cope.Republicans have proposed an amendment to strip that funding. Three Democrats want to boost it by $3 billion.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last week said the 2,900-page bill would “supercharge” investment in chips, boost U.S. manufacturing and research and advance American leadership as it confronts a rising China.House Republicans complained that Democrats did not include them in drafting the legislation. They harshly criticized the climate provisions and said they could be used to help Beijing. “Republicans are a strong ‘no,'” said Representative Michael McCaul, the top House Foreign Affairs Committee Republican.Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Cori Bush filed an amendment last week that would bar semiconductor companies receiving government subsidies from paying dividends or repurchasing company stock.The Senate passed its own bill – the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act – by 68-32 in June. That legislation includes $52 billion to increase domestic semiconductor production and authorizes $190 billion for U.S. technology and research to compete with China.The House bill authorizes $45 billion to strengthen supply chains and manufacturing of critical goods for health, communications and other sectors.If the full House measure passes, the Senate and House will have to reconcile differences between their bills. The final version would go back to both chambers for full approval and then, should that legislation pass, to Biden for his signature. More

Sometimes international diplomacy is so inept that it becomes genuinely entertaining. Recent US trade policy in the Asia-Pacific region is a case in point. Over a decade ago, the US devised a plan to export its economic model and outflank China through the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The idea: dangle the bait of preferential access to the voracious American consumer in order to rewrite the tariff, intellectual property, subsidy, regulatory and investment regimes of the world’s fastest-growing region.The administrations of George W Bush and Barack Obama got the deal signed, but Donald Trump and then Joe Biden decided imports were politically toxic and pulled out without ratifying. Amusingly, this allowed China to escalate its campaign for trade hegemony in Asia by applying to join. China is currently dancing gleefully at every party in the Asia-Pacific it can get into. It is a founding member of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, a shallow but broad trade deal, and is also applying to join the Digital Economic Partnership Agreement between Singapore, Chile and New Zealand.Having abandoned the 11-member TPP (now named the CPTPP after the clarification “Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for” was tacked on), the Biden administration is now reduced to mumbling vaguely about creating its own partnerships in Asia. No one thinks they will achieve very much, especially with no extra market access to offer.The US has definitely blundered. But it’s too strong to say, as some do, that this is a huge foreign policy mistake that will fatally weaken American influence.Certainly, CPTPP members aligned with the US are dismayed by its absence. Officials from Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand are nervously flicking glances at each other — and upwards at their political masters — to check their mutual resolve on denying China easy entry.If existing CPTPP governments want to block or delay China joining, they can set a high bar for proving adherence to rules on data localisation, state-owned enterprises, subsidies, IP rights, government procurement and so on. They are already making things difficult for the UK, which has also applied to join, just to show they aren’t soft touches. The British government has been somewhat taken aback by being made to squeeze through a bunch of low-diameter hoops to prove their laws fit CPTPP criteria.Japan, a leading sceptic, has circulated proposals setting out very tough conditions for China to meet. Mexico and Canada could also cite the poison pill provision in the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, allowing a member to leave if others sign a pact with a non-market economy like China. Holding up Chinese entry depends on political will as much as technical persnicketiness. It’s an ex ante judgment call, not an ex post objective fact, whether commitments on issues like state-owned enterprises will be honoured. As Lithuania and Australia are discovering, Beijing has ways of breaking trade rules that can be hard to prove. A Japanese official says: “The use of economic coercion in the context of Australia is directly contrary to the spirit of TPP.”The longing for renewed US involvement, however quixotic, endures. The official says that while the political landscape is hostile to trade, “the TPP is based on American standards, and we strongly still hope the US will change its attitude and return to TPP”.Though that seems unlikely, failing to join CPTPP doesn’t mean the US giving up on regional influence, whether economic or strategic. As the Japanese official also points out, American companies less dependent on trade deals to get market access — such as tech and financial services — are very present in Asia.As for geopolitical clout, recent experience suggests actual firepower is more important than the economic kind. Trade deals don’t automatically mean political alignment or influence. It’s not the EU with its “deep and comprehensive free trade agreement” with Ukraine, but the US, with its troop deployments in eastern Europe, that attends security summits with Russia. Australia and China have a trade deal dating back to 2015, but it hasn’t stopped Beijing trying to coerce Canberra. None of the US’s strategic capabilities — military might, security deals like the Australia-UK-US agreement, cyber security expertise, intelligence-sharing, imposing harsh financial sanctions via the dollar payments system — require CPTPP membership. And all are surely more important in projecting American influence. Taiwan wants to join CPTPP as a counterweight to China. But having the US put enough naval and air power in the South China Sea to deter a Chinese invasion is clearly better for Taiwan’s security and prosperity than having to fiddle around with its IP law so it can enter a trade deal with the US.It’s true that US economic diplomacy over the past decade has been comically weak and inconsistent. It has been undermined by the excessive fear of trade deals among the American public, encouraged by lobbies like organised labour and the steel industry. But its ineptitude over the CPTPP should not lead to a counsel of despair. Trade deals are important, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient for American foreign policy to assert itself in the [email protected] More

LONDON (Reuters) – Efforts to speed up the movement of goods around the world have yet to solve the supply chain bottlenecks caused by surging demand for retail goods and pandemic-related lockdowns, the latest shipping data shows.Delays at U.S. major ports have been particularly severe, but knock-on effects have also been felt around the world.This week’s Lunar New Year holiday in China and across Asia is also expected to aggravate delays.The journey time from China’s northern Dalian port to the major European port of Antwerp rose to 88 days in January from 68 days in December because of a combination of congestion and waiting time. This compared with 65 days in January 2021, analysis from logistics platform project44 showed.Transit time from Dalian to the eastern British port of Felixstowe, which has seen some of the biggest backlogs in Europe, reached 85 days in January from 81 in December, versus 65 days in January 2020.A survey conducted in January by technology company Container xChange, which canvassed 500 freight industry respondents, found 66% of those polled expected Chinese New Year factory closures to further disrupt container shipping supply chains. Josh Brazil of project44 said it would take “several years to return to pre-pandemic supply chain stability”.He said new vessel build capacity would not come to the market until 2024, meaning there was “no quick fix”.”While Europe has experienced much less port congestion compared to major U.S. ports, the congestion in southern California causes schedule disruptions and capacity constraints that have global consequences,” Brazil said. Delays at ports along the U.S. West Coast have also increased, with Oakland at over 10 days in January from around five in December, according to project44 data. Delays at Los Angeles stayed around six days in December and January. Ports have tried to extend working times to clear backlogs and companies have sought to shorten delivery routes and diversify goods suppliers to alleviate delays. Leading container group A.P. Moller-Maersk told its customers last month it was struggling to move goods around the world. More