UK fishermen hung out to dry by Quisling Tory Remainer Government. You Remainers must be delighted.
UK fishermen hung out to dry as a result of a dunderheaded brexit vote. You brexiters must be confused.
In the EU our fishing waters are open to EU countries. If we had a proper leave then they would not be. Under the transition they still are. No confusion on my part. Which side are you on, UK fishermen or EU fishermen?
UK fishermen hung out to dry by Quisling Tory Remainer Government. You Remainers must be delighted.
UK fishermen hung out to dry as a result of a dunderheaded brexit vote. You brexiters must be confused.
In the EU our fishing waters are open to EU countries. If we had a proper leave then they would not be. Under the transition they still are. No confusion on my part. Which side are you on, UK fishermen or EU fishermen?
To be honest I'm on the side of the fish. I don't want them going the same way as the Rhino population.
Wtf is all this fish dumping nonsense all about then???
I think it was the swearing and aggression?
You may may be slightly to the right @A-R-T-H-U-R but you are always quick with the humour.
Thank you, sir. I like to think of myself as straight down the middle, though on CL I can see how that is viewed as dressing to the right. I'll have a word with my tailor.
UK fishermen hung out to dry as a result of a dunderheaded brexit vote. You brexiters must be confused.
In the EU our fishing waters are open to EU countries. If we had a proper leave then they would not be. Under the transition they still are. No confusion on my part. Which side are you on, UK fishermen or EU fishermen?
I'd like to be of some assistance, if I may...
The negotiators representing the EU27 and Her Majesty's Government have been working away like busy bees to provide a text that, provided agreement can be found for the outstanding issues, and the various authorities that they are seeking to negotiate in behalf of agree, will allow for a transitional period (up to the end of the current fiscal round - so that the financial commitments that the UK had made could be honoured and the UK could have most, if not all, of the benefits that would be derived from those commitments) in which a future Free Trade Agreement may be scoped in more detail (the chances of one being negotiated and ratified within that time are, like my charm and sophistication, virtually non-existent).
The transition that still has to be agreed ensures that the least possible amount of disruption occurs, for both sides, until some form of agreement encompassing future relations can be agreed.
The key advantage of any transitional period is that it allows everyone the opportunity for reduced disruption and extra time to make preparations (although, given the current state of preparation within the UK, this may ensure that the country is just unready, as opposed to mind-bogglingly unprepared for the most basic requirements of regulatory divergence).
The only efficient way to have a transitional period is to base it on the status quo ante, even though the UK will not be a member of the EU. Any other option would require negotiation of a trade agreement. As I may have mentioned, a mere handful of times over the last couple of years on various Brexit threads, any trade negotiations will take years (and there is a minor problem that the EU rules - have I ever mentioned that the EU is a rules based organisation? - preclude trade negotiations with a member state, whilst it remains a member state).
The continuation of the status quo will relate to areas of interaction between the UK and EU27, such as the Single Market and, indeed, the CFP rules.
Without a transition agreement (even if both sides are happy to agree a deal), the UK can only have a disorderly departure from the EU.
I think Brexit is self harm, and I have no time for the leading lights of this Government, but the attempt to agree terms for a transition is (reasonably impressively) both an essential requirement if there are to be any trade benefits from Brexit and, because there are still areas of disagreement, an ongoing process (with no guarantee of success).
So, I would not describe those seeking to moderate potential damage to the UK economy as Quislings.
But, @Southbank, you can reassure yourself that there are still significant hurdles before any Withdrawal or Transition agreements will be ratified (after all, "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"), so you may find that the UK will find itself "taking back control" (with all three fishery patrol vessels) of its fisheries on 30 March next year, but without any deals with the EU.
UK fishermen hung out to dry as a result of a dunderheaded brexit vote. You brexiters must be confused.
In the EU our fishing waters are open to EU countries. If we had a proper leave then they would not be. Under the transition they still are. No confusion on my part. Which side are you on, UK fishermen or EU fishermen?
I'd like to be of some assistance, if I may...
The negotiators representing the EU27 and Her Majesty's Government have been working away like busy bees to provide a text that, provided agreement can be found for the outstanding issues, and the various authorities that they are seeking to negotiate in behalf of agree, will allow for a transitional period (up to the end of the current fiscal round - so that the financial commitments that the UK had made could be honoured and the UK could have most, if not all, of the benefits that would be derived from those commitments) in which a future Free Trade Agreement may be scoped in more detail (the chances of one being negotiated and ratified within that time are, like my charm and sophistication, virtually non-existent).
The transition that still has to be agreed ensures that the least possible amount of disruption occurs, for both sides, until some form of agreement encompassing future relations can be agreed.
The key advantage of any transitional period is that it allows everyone the opportunity for reduced disruption and extra time to make preparations (although, given the current state of preparation within the UK, this may ensure that the country is just unready, as opposed to mind-bogglingly unprepared for the most basic requirements of regulatory divergence).
The only efficient way to have a transitional period is to base it on the status quo ante, even though the UK will not be a member of the EU. Any other option would require negotiation of a trade agreement. As I may have mentioned, a mere handful of times over the last couple of years on various Brexit threads, any trade negotiations will take years (and there is a minor problem that the EU rules - have I ever mentioned that the EU is a rules based organisation? - preclude trade negotiations with a member state, whilst it remains a member state).
The continuation of the status quo will relate to areas of interaction between the UK and EU27, such as the Single Market and, indeed, the CFP rules.
Without a transition agreement (even if both sides are happy to agree a deal), the UK can only have a disorderly departure from the EU.
I think Brexit is self harm, and I have no time for the leading lights of this Government, but the attempt to agree terms for a transition is (reasonably impressively) both an essential requirement if there are to be any trade benefits from Brexit and, because there are still areas of disagreement, an ongoing process (with no guarantee of success).
So, I would not describe those seeking to moderate potential damage to the UK economy as Quislings.
But, @Southbank, you can reassure yourself that there are still significant hurdles before any Withdrawal or Transition agreements will be ratified (after all, "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"), so you may find that the UK will find itself "taking back control" (with all three fishery patrol vessels) of its fisheries on 30 March next year, but without any deals with the EU.
It may make you happy, but it terrifies me.
Perhaps the fish is a bit of a red herring (I have my coat on already!)
Perhaps the transition is the status quo (without voting and influence) and pushes the cliff edge from 12 months to 33 months time.
And perhaps a full on FTA with the EU will take five-seven years so the answer is to extend the transition period again...and again...and...
After all, is any government really going to be stupid enough to leave a Customs Union and Single Market where 60% of our imports and exports flow? Thus causing a 5-8% drop in GDP and tax revenues. And all based on Liam Fox and a potential trade policy with Trump, the Saudis and... nope everybody else has an FTA with the EU.
Hotel California after all with damage limitation meaning that we (the UK) hold the tension until we all move on politically. Not just my thoughts but those of the lead economist in the Times today.
Wtf is all this fish dumping nonsense all about then???
I think it was the swearing and aggression?
You may may be slightly to the right @A-R-T-H-U-R but you are always quick with the humour.
Thank you, sir. I like to think of myself as straight down the middle, though on CL I can see how that is viewed as dressing to the right. I'll have a word with my tailor.
But I am the one who is straight down the middle!
Perhaps the only way to sort this out is via, I don't know, a referendum of some kind? I've got a bus, if you can bring Google.....
Wtf is all this fish dumping nonsense all about then???
I think it was the swearing and aggression?
You may may be slightly to the right @A-R-T-H-U-R but you are always quick with the humour.
Thank you, sir. I like to think of myself as straight down the middle, though on CL I can see how that is viewed as dressing to the right. I'll have a word with my tailor.
But I am the one who is straight down the middle!
Perhaps the only way to sort this out is via, I don't know, a referendum of some kind? I've got a bus, if you can bring Google.....
I wouldn't trust the people who would vote for you to know what they are voting for.
Wtf is all this fish dumping nonsense all about then???
I think it was the swearing and aggression?
You may may be slightly to the right @A-R-T-H-U-R but you are always quick with the humour.
Thank you, sir. I like to think of myself as straight down the middle, though on CL I can see how that is viewed as dressing to the right. I'll have a word with my tailor.
But I am the one who is straight down the middle!
Perhaps the only way to sort this out is via, I don't know, a referendum of some kind? I've got a bus, if you can bring Google.....
I wouldn't trust the people who would vote for you to know what they are voting for.
Listen, liar, I HAVE A BUS, and I only need a few dozen wrinklies and 43% of the vote and I am there.
Where exactly, I don't exactly know yet.
But something will work itself out.
Also there might be a thorny border issue, but only one person is really bothered about that, really. So it's all good.
UK fishermen hung out to dry as a result of a dunderheaded brexit vote. You brexiters must be confused.
In the EU our fishing waters are open to EU countries. If we had a proper leave then they would not be. Under the transition they still are. No confusion on my part. Which side are you on, UK fishermen or EU fishermen?
I'd like to be of some assistance, if I may...
The negotiators representing the EU27 and Her Majesty's Government have been working away like busy bees to provide a text that, provided agreement can be found for the outstanding issues, and the various authorities that they are seeking to negotiate in behalf of agree, will allow for a transitional period (up to the end of the current fiscal round - so that the financial commitments that the UK had made could be honoured and the UK could have most, if not all, of the benefits that would be derived from those commitments) in which a future Free Trade Agreement may be scoped in more detail (the chances of one being negotiated and ratified within that time are, like my charm and sophistication, virtually non-existent).
The transition that still has to be agreed ensures that the least possible amount of disruption occurs, for both sides, until some form of agreement encompassing future relations can be agreed.
The key advantage of any transitional period is that it allows everyone the opportunity for reduced disruption and extra time to make preparations (although, given the current state of preparation within the UK, this may ensure that the country is just unready, as opposed to mind-bogglingly unprepared for the most basic requirements of regulatory divergence).
The only efficient way to have a transitional period is to base it on the status quo ante, even though the UK will not be a member of the EU. Any other option would require negotiation of a trade agreement. As I may have mentioned, a mere handful of times over the last couple of years on various Brexit threads, any trade negotiations will take years (and there is a minor problem that the EU rules - have I ever mentioned that the EU is a rules based organisation? - preclude trade negotiations with a member state, whilst it remains a member state).
The continuation of the status quo will relate to areas of interaction between the UK and EU27, such as the Single Market and, indeed, the CFP rules.
Without a transition agreement (even if both sides are happy to agree a deal), the UK can only have a disorderly departure from the EU.
I think Brexit is self harm, and I have no time for the leading lights of this Government, but the attempt to agree terms for a transition is (reasonably impressively) both an essential requirement if there are to be any trade benefits from Brexit and, because there are still areas of disagreement, an ongoing process (with no guarantee of success).
So, I would not describe those seeking to moderate potential damage to the UK economy as Quislings.
But, @Southbank, you can reassure yourself that there are still significant hurdles before any Withdrawal or Transition agreements will be ratified (after all, "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"), so you may find that the UK will find itself "taking back control" (with all three fishery patrol vessels) of its fisheries on 30 March next year, but without any deals with the EU.
It may make you happy, but it terrifies me.
Perhaps the fish is a bit of a red herring (I have my coat on already!)
Perhaps the transition is the status quo (without voting and influence) and pushes the cliff edge from 12 months to 33 months time.
And perhaps a full on FTA with the EU will take five-seven years so the answer is to extend the transition period again...and again...and...
After all, is any government really going to be stupid enough to leave a Customs Union and Single Market where 60% of our imports and exports flow? Thus causing a 5-8% drop in GDP and tax revenues. And all based on Liam Fox and a potential trade policy with Trump, the Saudis and... nope everybody else has an FTA with the EU.
Hotel California after all with damage limitation meaning that we (the UK) hold the tension until we all move on politically. Not just my thoughts but those of the lead economist in the Times today.
I would expect that (provided both sides can agree, and it meets WTO rules) the transition period would allow for a bare bones/interim FTA, based on CETA, to be put in place. But not, in fairness, much else.
I really don't know whether there would be sufficient public support, and there would need to be a clear indication of such support, beforehand, to allow for the Hotel California scenario you suggest.
The blue passports to be made by a Franco/Dutch company. Fucking hilarious
Control taken.
Johnny Foreigner staying over there stealing our jobs
I just heard an interview with the boss of the Gateshead company which lost the tender, and has made the current passports for the last ten years. I am not sure whether to be sympathetic or not. He conceded that he lost the tender on price. I must admit that I am sceptical of the competence of public bodies to run "free and fair" business tenders, with the Olympic Stadium never far from my thoughts.
He is aggrieved that his company has done this work for ten years and therefore knows what it is doing. But does that knowledge give him a competitive advantage? If so, was the tender not set up to make that an important criterion? He manifestly failed to make such a case. As he was asked, isn't this just an example of the sort of international business catfight that Global Britain is going to face?
Global competition happens many if not most areas, even my area of law can be done throughout Europe. No one should be surprised. But you'd think someone would have thought "well how will this look"? When the blue passports, beloved by so many leavers, when awarding the tender to people outside the UK.
The blue passports to be made by a Franco/Dutch company. Fucking hilarious
Control taken.
Johnny Foreigner staying over there stealing our jobs
I just heard an interview with the boss of the Gateshead company which lost the tender, and has made the current passports for the last ten years. I am not sure whether to be sympathetic or not. He conceded that he lost the tender on price. I must admit that I am sceptical of the competence of public bodies to run "free and fair" business tenders, with the Olympic Stadium never far from my thoughts.
He is aggrieved that his company has done this work for ten years and therefore knows what it is doing. But does that knowledge give him a competitive advantage? If so, was the tender not set up to make that an important criterion? He manifestly failed to make such a case. As he was asked, isn't this just an example of the sort of international business catfight that Global Britain is going to face?
I would have a deeper look before ever feeling sorry for de la rue. It’s not too long ago they had to fire their entire sales team for corruption in India (allegedly).
In my opinion they lost on price because they thought the government would have to select them, being patriotic and all when all the government actually has to do is retain the capability to print bank notes and ID documents on shore, they don’t have to simply give it business.
I don’t doubt for a second that sales guys from de la rue have accompanied Dr Fox on his trade missions, with no small endorsement.
The reason public tenders often appear a sham is because the results are subjective, they’ll never please all of the people all of the time. Handing the procurement process to consultants may get a slightly cheaper deal but the consultancy fees will soon make up for it and actually the protagonists will be the same as the government staff are recruited into the private sector as there’s no one else ‘qualifies’.
The blue passports to be made by a Franco/Dutch company. Fucking hilarious
Control taken.
Johnny Foreigner staying over there stealing our jobs
I just heard an interview with the boss of the Gateshead company which lost the tender, and has made the current passports for the last ten years. I am not sure whether to be sympathetic or not. He conceded that he lost the tender on price. I must admit that I am sceptical of the competence of public bodies to run "free and fair" business tenders, with the Olympic Stadium never far from my thoughts.
He is aggrieved that his company has done this work for ten years and therefore knows what it is doing. But does that knowledge give him a competitive advantage? If so, was the tender not set up to make that an important criterion? He manifestly failed to make such a case. As he was asked, isn't this just an example of the sort of international business catfight that Global Britain is going to face?
Just heard it as well and yes if we are going to put everything out to the cheapest bid then this is what happens but how much will we lose by 50 or so (a guess) people losing their jobs in a deprived part of the country. They will no doubt start getting benefits, stop paying taxes, stop spending their wages locally, start having the attendant ill health and social exclusion that comes with unemployment.
Isn't that why we are in this Brexit mess in the first place? Shut down a load of industries because we can get things cheaper elsewhere, not replace the jobs, write off the people (see how many people were encouraged to sign on 'the sick' under Thatcher), overheat the South East. The rump of the country then becomes susceptible to Farage and the far right fluttering its eyelids at it and votes for Brexit.
Wtf is all this fish dumping nonsense all about then???
I think it was the swearing and aggression?
You may may be slightly to the right @A-R-T-H-U-R but you are always quick with the humour.
Thank you, sir. I like to think of myself as straight down the middle, though on CL I can see how that is viewed as dressing to the right. I'll have a word with my tailor.
But I am the one who is straight down the middle!
Perhaps the only way to sort this out is via, I don't know, a referendum of some kind? I've got a bus, if you can bring Google.....
I wouldn't trust the people who would vote for you to know what they are voting for.
Listen, liar, I HAVE A BUS, and I only need a few dozen wrinklies and 43% of the vote and I am there.
Where exactly, I don't exactly know yet.
But something will work itself out.
Also there might be a thorny border issue, but only one person is really bothered about that, really. So it's all good.
OK you can have the old and the thick. I will have the young and the intelligent.
I am working on this social media campaign with some bloke who has just become unexpectedly available, he is an old Etonian and knows spies and everything.
Brexiters go on about brexit meaning cheaper food, clothing and footwear. Mogg has mentioned it a lot when wearing his Saville Row clothes and hand made shoes whilst dining at the Ritz. It all sounds like pronouncements towards the great unwashed. It will be sweatshop shoes and clothes and chlorinated deceased hens for 'the mob'. Not jobs in the UK...and now foreign British passports. As each day passes Lord Buckethead edges closer to immortality.
The blue passports to be made by a Franco/Dutch company. Fucking hilarious
Control taken.
Johnny Foreigner staying over there stealing our jobs
I just heard an interview with the boss of the Gateshead company which lost the tender, and has made the current passports for the last ten years. I am not sure whether to be sympathetic or not. He conceded that he lost the tender on price. I must admit that I am sceptical of the competence of public bodies to run "free and fair" business tenders, with the Olympic Stadium never far from my thoughts.
He is aggrieved that his company has done this work for ten years and therefore knows what it is doing. But does that knowledge give him a competitive advantage? If so, was the tender not set up to make that an important criterion? He manifestly failed to make such a case. As he was asked, isn't this just an example of the sort of international business catfight that Global Britain is going to face?
It's the naivety of those who believe we can truly go it alone (whatever that means to them) after Brexit that gets me. The lack of understanding that the integrated/globalised world we live in is irreversible. We have to be part of and playing a leading part in a meaningful grouping like the EU if we are to have any hope of maintaining our current lifestyle. As Putin is proving, we can so easily be picked off and isolated.
You Quitters voted for us to "take back control", without really knowing what it means. It's not your fault that you don't know what it means: it's the fault of the Johnsons, Goves, Farages, Hannans and others who concocted this preposterous and meaningless phrase. You Quitters aren't blameless for every element of the brexit shambles, but you are blameless for believing this particular lie. It was repeated often enough for it to be accepted as a real "thing". It's not.
"Taking back control" would - should - have meant gaining the ability to determine who wins contracts like the one for the new UK passports. It should mean that the Government chooses from a list that includes De La Rue, other UK-based companies or setting up a State-owned company (with the option of floating it). In the first instance, we would be giving the contract to a UK-based company, employing staff in the UK, paying tax here. Similar in the second case. And, with a State-owned company, we would be able to generate a contribution to the Exchequer.
If brexit was what it said on the tin, these would be our options and, frankly, each of them would make UK plc a bit better off. What's not to like?
However, brexit doesn't give us anything approaching "taking back control". Why? First because we have agreed, as part of the transition to continue to abid to the EU's rules, whereby tenders must be awarded to the business offering the "most economically advantageous terms". In other words, all other things being equal, the cheapest. And, if our own De La Rue can't offer this, then we are required to go with the business who can. So we have lost out. Our taxes are going to an EU-based company, employing foreign workers, paying tax in France and the Netherlands. Well done, brexit.
But wait! "This is only for the transition period"" I hear you cry. "As soon as that is over, we really take back control". Hooray! Except, by "taking back control", what we really mean is exchanging the EU rules for WTO rules. Which require us to do the same with contracts. Except there is a wider pool of cheap-labour locations which will be able to tender. So, in a few years' time, "taking back control" will mean that we no longer have to offer the contract to the Franco-Dutch lowest bidder; but we will have to offer it to the lowest bidder from wherever else the bid comes. Do you fancy having all your most valuable data transferred to India for printing on passports? China? Russia? Welcome to the word of WTO rules. Get used to them.
So, this "taking back control" thing we were all sold. It's not all it's cracked up to be really is it? But, when we're forced to go down the WTO route, at least they're not like the "unelected bureaucrats" of the EU, right? At least the WTO is democratic, right? At least we can vote for new leaders of the WTO commercial councils, can't we? By the way, when are the next WTO elections? Wait, what..?
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/21/jacob-rees-mogg-fishing-communities-hard-brexit
Edited
See above
The negotiators representing the EU27 and Her Majesty's Government have been working away like busy bees to provide a text that, provided agreement can be found for the outstanding issues, and the various authorities that they are seeking to negotiate in behalf of agree, will allow for a transitional period (up to the end of the current fiscal round - so that the financial commitments that the UK had made could be honoured and the UK could have most, if not all, of the benefits that would be derived from those commitments) in which a future Free Trade Agreement may be scoped in more detail (the chances of one being negotiated and ratified within that time are, like my charm and sophistication, virtually non-existent).
The transition that still has to be agreed ensures that the least possible amount of disruption occurs, for both sides, until some form of agreement encompassing future relations can be agreed.
The key advantage of any transitional period is that it allows everyone the opportunity for reduced disruption and extra time to make preparations (although, given the current state of preparation within the UK, this may ensure that the country is just unready, as opposed to mind-bogglingly unprepared for the most basic requirements of regulatory divergence).
The only efficient way to have a transitional period is to base it on the status quo ante, even though the UK will not be a member of the EU. Any other option would require negotiation of a trade agreement. As I may have mentioned, a mere handful of times over the last couple of years on various Brexit threads, any trade negotiations will take years (and there is a minor problem that the EU rules - have I ever mentioned that the EU is a rules based organisation? - preclude trade negotiations with a member state, whilst it remains a member state).
The continuation of the status quo will relate to areas of interaction between the UK and EU27, such as the Single Market and, indeed, the CFP rules.
Without a transition agreement (even if both sides are happy to agree a deal), the UK can only have a disorderly departure from the EU.
I think Brexit is self harm, and I have no time for the leading lights of this Government, but the attempt to agree terms for a transition is (reasonably impressively) both an essential requirement if there are to be any trade benefits from Brexit and, because there are still areas of disagreement, an ongoing process (with no guarantee of success).
So, I would not describe those seeking to moderate potential damage to the UK economy as Quislings.
But, @Southbank, you can reassure yourself that there are still significant hurdles before any Withdrawal or Transition agreements will be ratified (after all, "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"), so you may find that the UK will find itself "taking back control" (with all three fishery patrol vessels) of its fisheries on 30 March next year, but without any deals with the EU.
It may make you happy, but it terrifies me.
Perhaps the transition is the status quo (without voting and influence) and pushes the cliff edge from 12 months to 33 months time.
And perhaps a full on FTA with the EU will take five-seven years so the answer is to extend the transition period again...and again...and...
After all, is any government really going to be stupid enough to leave a Customs Union and Single Market where 60% of our imports and exports flow? Thus causing a 5-8% drop in GDP and tax revenues. And all based on Liam Fox and a potential trade policy with Trump, the Saudis and... nope everybody else has an FTA with the EU.
Hotel California after all with damage limitation meaning that we (the UK) hold the tension until we all move on politically. Not just my thoughts but those of the lead economist in the Times today.
I've got a bus, if you can bring Google.....
Control taken.
Where exactly, I don't exactly know yet.
But something will work itself out.
Also there might be a thorny border issue, but only one person is really bothered about that, really. So it's all good.
I really don't know whether there would be sufficient public support, and there would need to be a clear indication of such support, beforehand, to allow for the Hotel California scenario you suggest.
Click the tweet and read the thread
He is aggrieved that his company has done this work for ten years and therefore knows what it is doing. But does that knowledge give him a competitive advantage? If so, was the tender not set up to make that an important criterion? He manifestly failed to make such a case. As he was asked, isn't this just an example of the sort of international business catfight that Global Britain is going to face?
We are really bad at getting control aren't we?
In my opinion they lost on price because they thought the government would have to select them, being patriotic and all when all the government actually has to do is retain the capability to print bank notes and ID documents on shore, they don’t have to simply give it business.
I don’t doubt for a second that sales guys from de la rue have accompanied Dr Fox on his trade missions, with no small endorsement.
The reason public tenders often appear a sham is because the results are subjective, they’ll never please all of the people all of the time. Handing the procurement process to consultants may get a slightly cheaper deal but the consultancy fees will soon make up for it and actually the protagonists will be the same as the government staff are recruited into the private sector as there’s no one else ‘qualifies’.
Isn't that why we are in this Brexit mess in the first place? Shut down a load of industries because we can get things cheaper elsewhere, not replace the jobs, write off the people (see how many people were encouraged to sign on 'the sick' under Thatcher), overheat the South East. The rump of the country then becomes susceptible to Farage and the far right fluttering its eyelids at it and votes for Brexit.
I am working on this social media campaign with some bloke who has just become unexpectedly available, he is an old Etonian and knows spies and everything.
It all sounds like pronouncements towards the great unwashed.
It will be sweatshop shoes and clothes and chlorinated deceased hens for 'the mob'. Not jobs in the UK...and now foreign British passports.
As each day passes Lord Buckethead edges closer to immortality.
You Quitters voted for us to "take back control", without really knowing what it means. It's not your fault that you don't know what it means: it's the fault of the Johnsons, Goves, Farages, Hannans and others who concocted this preposterous and meaningless phrase. You Quitters aren't blameless for every element of the brexit shambles, but you are blameless for believing this particular lie. It was repeated often enough for it to be accepted as a real "thing". It's not.
"Taking back control" would - should - have meant gaining the ability to determine who wins contracts like the one for the new UK passports. It should mean that the Government chooses from a list that includes De La Rue, other UK-based companies or setting up a State-owned company (with the option of floating it). In the first instance, we would be giving the contract to a UK-based company, employing staff in the UK, paying tax here. Similar in the second case. And, with a State-owned company, we would be able to generate a contribution to the Exchequer.
If brexit was what it said on the tin, these would be our options and, frankly, each of them would make UK plc a bit better off. What's not to like?
However, brexit doesn't give us anything approaching "taking back control". Why? First because we have agreed, as part of the transition to continue to abid to the EU's rules, whereby tenders must be awarded to the business offering the "most economically advantageous terms". In other words, all other things being equal, the cheapest. And, if our own De La Rue can't offer this, then we are required to go with the business who can. So we have lost out. Our taxes are going to an EU-based company, employing foreign workers, paying tax in France and the Netherlands. Well done, brexit.
But wait! "This is only for the transition period"" I hear you cry. "As soon as that is over, we really take back control". Hooray! Except, by "taking back control", what we really mean is exchanging the EU rules for WTO rules. Which require us to do the same with contracts. Except there is a wider pool of cheap-labour locations which will be able to tender. So, in a few years' time, "taking back control" will mean that we no longer have to offer the contract to the Franco-Dutch lowest bidder; but we will have to offer it to the lowest bidder from wherever else the bid comes. Do you fancy having all your most valuable data transferred to India for printing on passports? China? Russia? Welcome to the word of WTO rules. Get used to them.
So, this "taking back control" thing we were all sold. It's not all it's cracked up to be really is it? But, when we're forced to go down the WTO route, at least they're not like the "unelected bureaucrats" of the EU, right? At least the WTO is democratic, right? At least we can vote for new leaders of the WTO commercial councils, can't we? By the way, when are the next WTO elections? Wait, what..?