Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's playing with fire, publishing the report gives impetous to stopping the no-deal Brexit.
Of course the no-deal Brexit itself is playing with fire, but no-deal Brexit is the kind of fire that burns in ways they consent to being burned, because they get well paid for it.



All of these are actually preventable or at least managable to a fair extent by a marginally competent administration and no preparation. You just need to have customs officials work overtime until further notice and use the overtime to clear through whatever is in short supply at that moment. At extra 8 hours/week this increases the theoretical capacity by 20%, but let's say you manage half that. It is unlikely staples and pharmaceuticals in short supply combined represent significantly more than 10% of all imports.

Yes, the gridlock is a problem, yes the economy will suffer, but there were be NO food riots, only occasional short supply of some non-staple foods and no pharmaceuticals were actually unavailable, so the Project Fear is defeated forever.

McHrozni

i am not sure that just work overtime solves the problems to be honest

 

[GlennB]

I read this yesterday on an expat forum but couldn't find another source. I also couldn't believe it -

"Home Secretary Priti Patel is determined for border restrictions to be imposed immediately on October 31, even without a replacement system, says The Independent.
...
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said: ‘It is completely detached from reality and is next chapter in the never-ending saga of the utter mess they are making of Brexit. What would this mean for EU citizens who have made their home in the UK who have travelled abroad when they try to return?
...
Are the government seriously suggesting an NHS nurse who is an EU national may not be allowed to return to the country if they happen to have been on holiday? It is absurd.’"

It still seems that The Independent is the source for reports elsewhere. I still can't believe Patel might do this.

 

[McHrozni]

i am not sure that just work overtime solves the problems to be honest

It didn't say it "solves" the problem. It manages it the problem to the extent it doesn't descdend into food riots, until a more permanent solution is found. That takes months, the overtime solution is sustainable for up to three months. After that time the burnout rate will skyrocket and you need to have something else in place by that time. It is unlikely a permanent solution would be achived in three months, but there is another way - a new GE after no-deal Brexit.

If the crisis is managed for long enough to hold another election, one where Brexit party has been eviscerated because their only policy proposal has already been fulfilled, while Labour and LibDems split the vote, Tories may well come out to dominate in the new Parliament

That's ... not ... a bad plan from the Tory partisan perspective, come to think of it. So long as the no-deal Brexit crisis can be managed until after the election, a PM with a large governing majority and probably five years of power could do a lot. The easiest long-term solution from that point would be to consent to a permanent customs border in the Irish sea.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It didn't say it "solves" the problem. It manages it the problem to the extent it doesn't descdend into food riots, until a more permanent solution is found. That takes months, the overtime solution is sustainable for up to three months. After that time the burnout rate will skyrocket and you need to have something else in place by that time. It is unlikely a permanent solution would be achived in three months, but there is another way - a new GE after no-deal Brexit.

If the crisis is managed for long enough to hold another election, one where Brexit party has been eviscerated because their only policy proposal has already been fulfilled, while Labour and LibDems split the vote, Tories may well come out to dominate in the new Parliament

That's ... not ... a bad plan from the Tory partisan perspective, come to think of it. So long as the no-deal Brexit crisis can be managed until after the election, a PM with a large governing majority and probably five years of power could do a lot. The easiest long-term solution from that point would be to consent to a permanent customs border in the Irish sea.

McHrozni

Ok i will clarify. i am not sure that simply adding more man hours is the issue even in the short term.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I read this yesterday on an expat forum but couldn't find another source. I also couldn't believe it -

"Home Secretary Priti Patel is determined for border restrictions to be imposed immediately on October 31, even without a replacement system, says The Independent.
...
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem home affairs spokesman, said: ‘It is completely detached from reality and is next chapter in the never-ending saga of the utter mess they are making of Brexit. What would this mean for EU citizens who have made their home in the UK who have travelled abroad when they try to return?
...
Are the government seriously suggesting an NHS nurse who is an EU national may not be allowed to return to the country if they happen to have been on holiday? It is absurd.’"

It still seems that The Independent is the source for reports elsewhere. I still can't believe Patel might do this.

in the event of no deal EU citizens will have no right to enter the UK as far as I can see. Unless the UK passes legislation to that effect. So Patel would only be doing her job in this case.

It is absurd. but it also would be the law. A German would be no different to an Angolan.

 

[Planigale]

As I understand it the May deal as is would not result in a 'hard' border with Ireland. Therefore the Backstop is not currently required if the May deal is approved. The May deal did not get through parliament because of the backstop being part of the package.

If the EU agreed to defer the decision on the backstop to the next stage of the negotiations then the May agreement would probably pass in parliament there would be no hard Brexit and no hard border.

 

[McHrozni]

Ok i will clarify. i am not sure that simply adding more man hours is the issue even in the short term.

Why not? The problem is gridlock, which arises due to inability of the customs officials to process the arriving goods in time for the goods to hit the shelves when they're needed. Increasing their capacity should reduce that problem.

Granted, there is still issue with just in time delivery, but that's only critical with products that can't be stockpiled and have to delivered fresh. Fresh vegetables and the like would be a problem and there may well be shortages of those but you won't get food riots over a shortage of lettuce.

Critical medications and reagents that can't be stockpiled could also use air transport to get around the gridlock. Yes, costs of lods of goods go up for no good reason, but outright food riots and serious shortages of medications are all preventable by a marginally competent administration.

For a few months anyway.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

As I understand it the May deal as is would not result in a 'hard' border with Ireland. Therefore the Backstop is not currently required if the May deal is approved. The May deal did not get through parliament because of the backstop being part of the package.

If the EU agreed to defer the decision on the backstop to the next stage of the negotiations then the May agreement would probably pass in parliament there would be no hard Brexit and no hard border.

The backstop is what prevents a hard border in Ireland under the May deal.

 

[McHrozni]

If the EU agreed to defer the decision on the backstop to the next stage of the negotiations then the May agreement would probably pass in parliament there would be no hard Brexit and no hard border.

Given the behavior of the UK recently it would be outright foolish for the EU to assume good faith on behalf of the UK.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

As I understand it the May deal as is would not result in a 'hard' border with Ireland. Therefore the Backstop is not currently required if the May deal is approved. The May deal did not get through parliament because of the backstop being part of the package.

If the EU agreed to defer the decision on the backstop to the next stage of the negotiations then the May agreement would probably pass in parliament there would be no hard Brexit and no hard border.

Theresa May's deal was, in effect, business as usual for around 2 years while the eventual deal was being worked on. Based on how long it took to get to even this stage, the EU were understandably concerned that a deal would likely not be in place at the end of that period and that the result would be a hard Brexit with all that entails for the future of the Good Friday Agreement.

Agreeing to defer the decision on the backstop is like deferring a decision on whether to take a reserve parachute when skydiving.

 

[McHrozni]

Agreeing to defer the decision on the backstop is like deferring a decision on whether to take a reserve parachute when skydiving ...

... with a backpack that looks like it might contain a parachute, but it's suspiciously light and lacks the ripcrod.

I'd take the reserve parachute in that case.

McHrozni

 

[Planigale]

The back stop is an issue because it requires the UK to remain in a free travel area and free trade area with the EU and unable to enter into trade agreements with third countries and subject to EU regulations and the ECJ. I think that no matter ones views on the stupidity of Brexit, this is not in accordance with the intentions of those who voted for Brexit. Agreeing to the backstop would require parliament to ignore the referendum.

The UK would be bound to any future EU arrangements e.g. if the EU introduced an embargo on Israeli goods the UK would have to follow on. There is no article 50 for the backstop, leaving would only be possible if the EU consented. In theory any vote of parliament to leave could be ruled unconstitutional by the ECJ. Leaving a difficult constitutional issue.

Yes there are proposals that some sort of arbitration process could be set up, but the UK has to sign up to the backstop first before the arrangements are agreed.

If the UK signs up to the backstop then the EU defines the terms of the future relationship between the EU and the UK. There may be a little room for negotiation on the details but the UK is agreeing to a 'pig in a poke'. The UK has to agree to the EU terms before seeing them.

 

[GlennB]

in the event of no deal EU citizens will have no right to enter the UK as far as I can see. Unless the UK passes legislation to that effect. So Patel would only be doing her job in this case.

It is absurd. but it also would be the law. A German would be no different to an Angolan.

A German (say) would need a visa just to spend a holiday or attend a business meeting in the UK? Is it being suggested that this becomes the default, by law, on Nov 1st in the event of no-deal? I thought 'assurances' had been given already.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Why not? The problem is gridlock, which arises due to inability of the customs officials to process the arriving goods in time for the goods to hit the shelves when they're needed. Increasing their capacity should reduce that problem.

Granted, there is still issue with just in time delivery, but that's only critical with products that can't be stockpiled and have to delivered fresh. Fresh vegetables and the like would be a problem and there may well be shortages of those but you won't get food riots over a shortage of lettuce.

Critical medications and reagents that can't be stockpiled could also use air transport to get around the gridlock. Yes, costs of lods of goods go up for no good reason, but outright food riots and serious shortages of medications are all preventable by a marginally competent administration.

For a few months anyway.

McHrozni

For a number of reasons.

First of all if you are putting in place processes to address emergencies then normally these things eat away at capacity anyway. So you aren't going to get proportional benefits.

Second, I don't think its a pure manpower issue. I think there are issues of systems, getting data, capacity of processes etc.

Then you don't know how businesses are going to deal with it. If a business has screwed up the paperwork then having more customs staff doesn't help if they are just sitting there waiting for someone to reply to their email or wasting time chasing information on the phone.

What happens to all those parcels/shipments sent October 30th under the old rules that arrive Nov 1st?

And finally, a lot of the issues are going to be caused by consumers panicking and bulk buying. Unless you are going to start rationing people then its going to be chaos.

That's not to mention that a government forced to throw huge sums of money at people to prioritise food imports while the rest of the economy dies - what happens to other imports, exports, etc during this period? - has pretty much failed anyway.

 

[The Don]

Why not? The problem is gridlock, which arises due to inability of the customs officials to process the arriving goods in time for the goods to hit the shelves when they're needed. Increasing their capacity should reduce that problem.

I don't think having officials working longer hours necessarily increases the overall capacity. There is limited space to park vehicles, a limited number of weighbridges and inspection facilities and so on.

As I understand it, there is a shortage of infrastructure as well as a shortage of skilled staff. There's also a law of diminishing returns if staff have to work longer hours. Per hour productivity drops and typically there will be higher levels of absence.

 

[Planigale]

Theresa May's deal was, in effect, business as usual for around 2 years while the eventual deal was being worked on. Based on how long it took to get to even this stage, the EU were understandably concerned that a deal would likely not be in place at the end of that period and that the result would be a hard Brexit with all that entails for the future of the Good Friday Agreement.

Agreeing to defer the decision on the backstop is like deferring a decision on whether to take a reserve parachute when skydiving.

Analogies are a poor basis for argument.

The more likely outcome in two years would be an agreement to continue as is if negotiations are on going.

I am not sure who it is better for the EU or the UK to have a hard Brexit now, as opposed to possibly having one in two years time.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The back stop is an issue because it requires the UK to remain in a free travel area and free trade area with the EU and unable to enter into trade agreements with third countries and subject to EU regulations and the ECJ. I think that no matter ones views on the stupidity of Brexit, this is not in accordance with the intentions of those who voted for Brexit. Agreeing to the backstop would require parliament to ignore the referendum.

This only makes sense if you believe that leaving the EU has to be implemented in one great leap into the unknown whether we are properly prepared for it or not.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with implementing leaving the EU in managed stages. So it would not be ignoring the referendum at all.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

The back stop is an issue because it requires the UK to remain in a free travel area and free trade area with the EU and unable to enter into trade agreements with third countries and subject to EU regulations and the ECJ. I think that no matter ones views on the stupidity of Brexit, this is not in accordance with the intentions of those who voted for Brexit. Agreeing to the backstop would require parliament to ignore the referendum.
The UK would be bound to any future EU arrangements e.g. if the EU introduced an embargo on Israeli goods the UK would have to follow on. There is no article 50 for the backstop, leaving would only be possible if the EU consented. In theory any vote of parliament to leave could be ruled unconstitutional by the ECJ. Leaving a difficult constitutional issue.

Yes there are proposals that some sort of arbitration process could be set up, but the UK has to sign up to the backstop first before the arrangements are agreed.

If the UK signs up to the backstop then the EU defines the terms of the future relationship between the EU and the UK. There may be a little room for negotiation on the details but the UK is agreeing to a 'pig in a poke'. The UK has to agree to the EU terms before seeing them.

Regarding the highlighted bit, how do you know this? Because noone in the Brexit camp seems to know exactly what they want.
If a Norway style deal is made, which was mentioned by a several leading brexiteers, that would mean exactly the same.

Besides, while it is an interesting tactic to keep coming up with 'but if the EU were to suddenly do X", none of those doom scenarios are in any way likely, nor is there any known interest in the EU to keeping the UK shackled.
The only reason the backstop was needed was because the UK was unable to determine what it wanted in the first place.

As mentioned, in these negotiations its the UK that is the unreliable negotiator, not the EU.

 

[McHrozni]

I don't think having officials working longer hours necessarily increases the overall capacity. There is limited space to park vehicles, a limited number of weighbridges and inspection facilities and so on.

Sure, but weighbridges and inspection facilities don't currently operate 24/7 at full capacity, do they?

Longer workhours is how you utilise the limiting factors in infrastructure a bit more. Plus adding new weighbridges and inspection facilities can be done much more quickly than adding a whole new cadre of qualified, competent inspection officials. New infrastructure could be done between now and Brexit day in fact. It wouldn't look pretty and it would cost more of course, but it can be done. A weightbridge isn't exactly an aircraft carrier.

As I understand it, there is a shortage of infrastructure as well as a shortage of skilled staff. There's also a law of diminishing returns if staff have to work longer hours. Per hour productivity drops and typically there will be higher levels of absence.

Of course, that's why the upper limit for this solution is about three months. That's an estimate, it could function a bit longer or it could collapse sooner than three months. There would be a progression from very effective in the first couple of weeks to only marginally effective in the last month or something of that nature.
You'll notice I only added half of the extra worked hours to the output - in other words I assumed the customs officials would be only 50% as effective, on average, as they are during regular hours. Even so that should be sufficient to stave off food riots and ensure all necessary pharmaceuticals are available.

Note, I didn't say that solves the problem of trade. I'm saying it staves off riots from food and medical shortages for three months.

McHrozni

 

[Planigale]

Given the behavior of the UK recently it would be outright foolish for the EU to assume good faith on behalf of the UK.

McHrozni

I think good faith should not be a requirement for negotiation, that is what the lawyers are for..

The EU can absolutely make clear that they will not sign a deal that produces a hard border. But that should be part of the negotiation. The problem is that the EU is insisting on agreeing the outcome and that they define the outcome before the negotiations have begun. Even the negotiation on an arbitration process over the backstop cannot be entered into until the backstop is signed unto.

The backstop is causing what it is intended to prevent. To use a bad analogy since others like them it would be a bit like Boeing insisting that because the MCAS was intended to prevent crashes then it will remain in place as is.