Brexit: Now What? Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tolls said:
No they didn't.
The agreement was entirely around those currently in the UK (up to March next year).
It did not cover the movement of people after that, as that would (of necessity) be tied to the nature of the transitional agreement.

You can read it here (though it's deadly dull). Quoting para 6:

"
The overall objective of the Withdrawal Agreement with respect to citizens' rights is
to provide reciprocal protection for Union and UK citizens, to enable the effective
exercise of rights derived from Union law and based on past life choices, where
those citizens have exercised free movement rights by the specified date.
"

It does not cover those moving post-withdrawal.
Click to expand...

"This does not prejudge any adaptations that might be appropriate in case transitional arrangements were to be agreed in the second phase of the negotiations ..."

It looks to me (and the EU, by their reaction) that May has defined two different "specified dates", one being March 2019 and the other being the end of the transitional period. Cake and eat it, in other words.
 
The government estimates that as a 3rd country the UK will get allocated 1,200 licenses for road hauliers to operate in the EU.

There are something like 75,000 registered Road Hauliers in the UK with about 10% of them operating in Europe that's 7500 operators and there were 292,000 RoRo UK registered goods vehicles journeys in 2017.

That's a lot of them going to be disappointed after Brexit.

What kind of effect will this have on JIT manufacturing supply chains and live Shellfish exporters? (Most of the UK Shellfish catch goes direct to Europe by road)

I suppose we could let the European hauliers bring all the extra loads in to the UK and export them to Europe for us.

Some loads could be switched to Contaiers and come in through the ports but that won't work very well for fresh food produce or the fishing industry.
Plus there would be a big bottleneck while extra port capacity and the associated road and rail infrastructure was built.

On the up side those who do get a licence, will have a lovely new blue passport
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
The government estimates that as a 3rd country the UK will get allocated 1,200 licenses for road hauliers to operate in the EU.

There are something like 75,000 registered Road Hauliers in the UK with about 10% of them operating in Europe that's 7500 operators and there were 292,000 RoRo UK registered goods vehicles journeys in 2017.

That's a lot of them going to be disappointed after Brexit.

What kind of effect will this have on JIT manufacturing supply chains and live Shellfish exporters? (Most of the UK Shellfish catch goes direct to Europe by road)

I suppose we could let the European hauliers bring all the extra loads in to the UK and export them to Europe for us.

Some loads could be switched to Contaiers and come in through the ports but that won't work very well for fresh food produce or the fishing industry.
Plus there would be a big bottleneck while extra port capacity and the associated road and rail infrastructure was built.

On the up side those who do get a licence, will have a lovely new blue passport
Click to expand...

All this can of course be happily ignored because it's just part of Project Fear after all and in any case, the UK will continue to be able to do business with the EU exactly as we do today except that we won't have to accept the 4 freedoms, the primacy of EU law or abide by any EU rules we don't want. :rolleyes:

After all, please remember they need us more than we need them - apparently :rolleyes:
 
PD Ports have been expanding their container capacity around the country for the last couple of years. They can see the way it's going.
Teesport just sprouted four big container gantries and their associated hard standing just up river from Tees Dock, their regular cargo is all North Sea Roundabout tonnage. Ships that do circular runs around the North Sea and Baltic with a couple of weeklies up from the Med and Spain.
 
It might be interesting to discuss how tariffs work - who pays them, where the money goes to and how that money might eventually be spent.

My present understanding (which might well be wrong) is that export tariffs are actually very rare and most tariffs are import tariffs, paid by the importer to the government of the importing country - and then most often ultimately passed on to the consumers as increased prices. So if we do end up paying tariffs on stuff imported from the EU this money would go to the UK government and then could be spent (for example) on the NHS.

Perhaps this should be the subject of a separate thread rather than being mixed in here. Perhaps in the Economics and Business forum?
 
ceptimus said:
It might be interesting to discuss how tariffs work - who pays them, where the money goes to and how that money might eventually be spent.

My present understanding (which might well be wrong) is that export tariffs are actually very rare and most tariffs are import tariffs, paid by the importer to the government of the importing country - and then most often ultimately passed on to the consumers as increased prices. So if we do end up paying tariffs on stuff imported from the EU this money would go to the UK government and then could be spent (for example) on the NHS.

Perhaps this should be the subject of a separate thread rather than being mixed in here. Perhaps in the Economics and Business forum?
Click to expand...

I should also remind people that most studies into Brexit have pointed out that non-tariff barriers are predicted to be more expensive than the tariffs themselves.
 
Tolls said:
No they didn't.
The agreement was entirely around those currently in the UK (up to March next year).
It did not cover the movement of people after that, as that would (of necessity) be tied to the nature of the transitional agreement.

You can read it here (though it's deadly dull). Quoting para 6:

"
The overall objective of the Withdrawal Agreement with respect to citizens' rights is
to provide reciprocal protection for Union and UK citizens, to enable the effective
exercise of rights derived from Union law and based on past life choices, where
those citizens have exercised free movement rights by the specified date.
"

It does not cover those moving post-withdrawal.
Click to expand...

Thanks - I see some careful drafting which I missed in December. :blush:
 
Cutting editorial in The Times (behind registration wall)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...e-voters-and-themselves-over-brexit-r7nc79cw5

Sometimes, the mask slips. In the Commons this week, Jacob Rees-Mogg, famously the gentleman, slandered a studious and respected think-tanker and some identifiable Treasury officials. He did this by repeating a piece of hearsay, echoing it back to the colleague he’d heard it from, so that parliament and the public could hear it too. Mr Rees-Mogg’s question showed signs of careful preparation and there will be speculation that the pair (the colleague was a minister) had colluded in this exchange. Perhaps. The involuntary wince on the face of the Brexit secretary David Davis spoke volumes.

The story was entirely false. The House has now heard an apology from Rees-Mogg’s ministerial colleague. But from Gentleman Jake? From the man who published the story? Only slippery evasion.
Click to expand...

It’s revealing, too, about the Brexit ultras: so blinded by zealotry as to think it even remotely likely that senior civil servants would cook the figures; so blinded by zealotry as not even to check with the alleged source of the story — but instead to take a flyer with the facts and the proprieties in the cause of some supposed greater good: Brexit.

With a complicit prime minister and a supine cabinet trailing in its wake, Europhobia — this mutant gene in the Conservative body politic now spreading its cancer through the whole government — is moving from idiocy to dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Eden lied about Suez and his government concealed its purpose; but he believed in that purpose and believed it to be in the national interest. Blair dissimulated about Iraq and his government used dark arts to clear its path. But he believed in the adventure and believed it to be in the national interest.
Click to expand...

The rest is accurate from a Tory supporter too.
 
Rees-Mogg doubling down on his conspiracy claims today.

As for his 'set to' with students.
He and hgis supporters claim left wing demonstrators and 'remainers' started the fight.
Looking at the full video of the event it can be seen one of his supporters punches the woman Rees-Mogg is arguing with.
Video clips released by his supporters start after this incident and show one of the protestors jumping in to push the man away, then it 'kicked off'
 
Aber said:
That's from Matthew Parris, an ex Conservative MP and regular columnist, who is very much a Remainer, and who has also said that he wouldn't join the Conservative party today.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it is still accurate.

Especially about Rees-Mogg's behaviour
 
Brexiteer cabinet members calling for unity behind a hard Brexit and pushing the discredited anti-treasury conspiracy theory being promoted by Rees-Mogg

Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, arch Brexiteer Bernard Jenkin singled out the chancellor for criticism, urging him to back the PM to deliver a "clean" EU exit.

He insisted Theresa May should stick to her present policy despite the Treasury having its own "house view".
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42935058

It used to be that unfavourable forecasts could be ignored - now they're evidence of a deep-state conspiracy :rolleyees:
 
ceptimus said:
Discredited by whom?
Click to expand...

Read the Matthew Parris article. I linked to upthread

Hours later, Prospect magazine, which had hosted the lunch, posted the audio recording. Mr Grant had said no such thing. Yesterday morning Baker apologised. Rees-Mogg has not.
Click to expand...
 
ceptimus said:
Discredited by whom?
Click to expand...

By Steve Baker who initially made the allegations and then had to apologise in Parliament

A Brexit minister has apologised in Parliament for comments he made about the independence of the civil service.

Steve Baker said he had been told Treasury officials were deliberately trying to influence policy in favour of staying in the EU customs union.

Charles Grant, an EU policy expert said to have been the source of the claims, has since denied telling Mr Baker this.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42911538

It is following the usual trajectory because it allows Rees-Mogg to insist that there is taint there despite the complete lack of evidence - unless you consider the fact that study after study shows that the UK will suffer economically after Brexit is evidence of bias (in much the same way as study after study showing that that Earth isn't flat is evidence of cartographers' conspiratorial bias against a flat Earth).

This is what passes for fact in today's "alternative facts" riddled world. The lack of evidence to support a position is merely evidence of the effectiveness of the "deep state" cover-up :boggled:
 
The Don said:
By Steve Baker who initially made the allegations and then had to apologise in Parliament



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42911538

It is following the usual trajectory because it allows Rees-Mogg to insist that there is taint there despite the complete lack of evidence - unless you consider the fact that study after study shows that the UK will suffer economically after Brexit is evidence of bias (in much the same way as study after study showing that that Earth isn't flat is evidence of cartographers' conspiratorial bias against a flat Earth).

This is what passes for fact in today's "alternative facts" riddled world. The lack of evidence to support a position is merely evidence of the effectiveness of the "deep state" cover-up :boggled:
Click to expand...

Rees-Mogg is following the Trump playbook, make an outrageous claim based on something he heard, then either ignore it when the claim is debunked or imply the debunking is part of the same 'problem'.

It's the same with the referendum, they are now insisting that anything other than a hard Brexit somehow betrays the result, conveniently ignoring the promises made by Leave during the campaign.
 
Amber Rudd strikes back:

She said she had been "surprised" at Mr Rees-Mogg's remarks and added that ministerial Brexit colleague Steve Baker - who has clashed with Whitehall unions and apologised to Parliament - had had an "interesting week".
Click to expand...

Mind you she also said:

But Ms Rudd told Andrew Marr she had "a surprise for the Brexiteers", that the key Brexit committee of ministers was "more united than they think".
Click to expand...

Well I suppose that wouldn't be hard to achieve...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom