The funniest thing about the De la Rue interview, is that the interviewer, the always excellent Justin Webb, pointed out that the French have said they wouldn't give out their passport printing to international tender, because they consider passports a matter of national security. It would appear that the French already have quite enough control (as indeed they do over their energy and utility companies, which they consider to be strategic national assets) . And curiously, the little green men in Brussels have not done anything to try and wrest control from them.
The funniest thing about the De la Rue interview, is that the interviewer, the always excellent Justin Webb, pointed out that the French have said they wouldn't give out their passport printing to international tender, because they consider passports a matter of national security. It would appear that the French already have quite enough control (as indeed they do over their energy and utility companies, which they consider to be strategic national assets) . And curiously, the little green men in Brussels have not done anything to try and wrest control from them.
Was about to say that. We have enough control to bend the rules already, see every other EU country. We have just chosen not to.
The funniest thing about the De la Rue interview, is that the interviewer, the always excellent Justin Webb, pointed out that the French have said they wouldn't give out their passport printing to international tender, because they consider passports a matter of national security. It would appear that the French already have quite enough control (as indeed they do over their energy and utility companies, which they consider to be strategic national assets) . And curiously, the little green men in Brussels have not done anything to try and wrest control from them.
Was about to say that. We have enough control to bend the rules already, see every other EU country. We have just chosen not to.
The thing is, it is not bending the EU rules, because they make clear that, in cases of national security, it is acceptable to limit procurement, etc. (and, given that nice Mr Trump's attempted use of the term when imposing steel tariffs, it seems likely that the same is true for WTO tariffs).
If the UK Government had decided that control of passport printing (or ownership of key infrastructure) was a national security priority, with a robust legal defence, should it be challenged (because that is another thing that the EU rules allow), then it could quite happily retain direct state control/ownership within the UK.
Edit - there is also nothing in EU rules that prevents state owned ventures from being awarded contracts (as long as this is the most economically advantageous method).
The funniest thing about the De la Rue interview, is that the interviewer, the always excellent Justin Webb, pointed out that the French have said they wouldn't give out their passport printing to international tender, because they consider passports a matter of national security. It would appear that the French already have quite enough control (as indeed they do over their energy and utility companies, which they consider to be strategic national assets) . And curiously, the little green men in Brussels have not done anything to try and wrest control from them.
Was about to say that. We have enough control to bend the rules already, see every other EU country. We have just chosen not to.
The thing is, it is not bending the EU rules, because they make clear that, in cases of national security, it is acceptable to limit procurement, etc. (and, given that nice Mr Trump's attempted use of the term when imposing steel tariffs, it seems likely that the same is true for WTO tariffs).
If the UK Government had decided that control of passport printing (or ownership of key infrastructure) was a national security priority, with a robust legal defence, should it be challenged (because that is another thing that the EU rules allow), then it could quite happily retain direct state control/ownership within the UK.
Oi! How many more times will you correct my 'easy read' posts?
The funniest thing about the De la Rue interview, is that the interviewer, the always excellent Justin Webb, pointed out that the French have said they wouldn't give out their passport printing to international tender, because they consider passports a matter of national security. It would appear that the French already have quite enough control (as indeed they do over their energy and utility companies, which they consider to be strategic national assets) . And curiously, the little green men in Brussels have not done anything to try and wrest control from them.
Was about to say that. We have enough control to bend the rules already, see every other EU country. We have just chosen not to.
The thing is, it is not bending the EU rules, because they make clear that, in cases of national security, it is acceptable to limit procurement, etc. (and, given that nice Mr Trump's attempted use of the term when imposing steel tariffs, it seems likely that the same is true for WTO tariffs).
If the UK Government had decided that control of passport printing (or ownership of key infrastructure) was a national security priority, with a robust legal defence, should it be challenged (because that is another thing that the EU rules allow), then it could quite happily retain direct state control/ownership within the UK.
Edit - there is also nothing in EU rules that prevents state owned ventures from being awarded contracts (as long as this is the most economically advantageous method).
It's bound to be those bloody Remainer Civil Servants up to their mischief making again
Yes, it's that dastardly 'remainer government' stitching up a bastion of British industry, again.
Trouble is i guess, if you pay for more expensive passports, then it eats further into that 'brexit dividend' that's going to soften the blow of our leaving...
The funniest thing about the De la Rue interview, is that the interviewer, the always excellent Justin Webb, pointed out that the French have said they wouldn't give out their passport printing to international tender, because they consider passports a matter of national security. It would appear that the French already have quite enough control (as indeed they do over their energy and utility companies, which they consider to be strategic national assets) . And curiously, the little green men in Brussels have not done anything to try and wrest control from them.
Just shows again how corrupt the EU is. They do not even play by their own rules.
The funniest thing about the De la Rue interview, is that the interviewer, the always excellent Justin Webb, pointed out that the French have said they wouldn't give out their passport printing to international tender, because they consider passports a matter of national security. It would appear that the French already have quite enough control (as indeed they do over their energy and utility companies, which they consider to be strategic national assets) . And curiously, the little green men in Brussels have not done anything to try and wrest control from them.
Just shows again how corrupt the EU is. They do not even play by their own rules.
The funniest thing about the De la Rue interview, is that the interviewer, the always excellent Justin Webb, pointed out that the French have said they wouldn't give out their passport printing to international tender, because they consider passports a matter of national security. It would appear that the French already have quite enough control (as indeed they do over their energy and utility companies, which they consider to be strategic national assets) . And curiously, the little green men in Brussels have not done anything to try and wrest control from them.
Just shows again how corrupt the EU is. They do not even play by their own rules.
They are playing exactly by the rules, whilst we are playing by some bizarre subset and then blaming the EU because we didn't read big chunks of the rule book.
The funniest thing about the De la Rue interview, is that the interviewer, the always excellent Justin Webb, pointed out that the French have said they wouldn't give out their passport printing to international tender, because they consider passports a matter of national security. It would appear that the French already have quite enough control (as indeed they do over their energy and utility companies, which they consider to be strategic national assets) . And curiously, the little green men in Brussels have not done anything to try and wrest control from them.
Just shows again how corrupt the EU is. They do not even play by their own rules.
@Dippenhall you gave the following one example of the EU being run for the benefit of big business...
"MiFID II Regulations that have taken 7 years to bring to the table are supposedly to improve transparency of asset managers activities and costs. It will not allow firms to use research information they have received in return for providing services, they must pay up front for a specific research resource. Trouble is it's the SME market which relies on small brokers to help them raise capital using the research obtained third hand. The large companies pay zillions to professionals for bespoke research already.
So SME's are going to struggle without the ability to raise capital on the European exchanges, being unable to afford the fees for bespoke research they need to support capital raising initiatives. Smaller firms in the financial services area will be unable to afford the regulatory compliance costs associated with record keeping that in 99% of cases will never be of any value.
Consumers may well benefit from lower costs in the long run, but who pays for it? - small businesses.
Is that specific enough?"
Yes, it's VERY specific thanks and the end result from what you're saying is that EU citizens may end making a saving. Reading around it, because I know nothing about it in all honesty, it's aims are to increase transparency and traceability amongst other things. Or as the Independant and other sources put it...
"MiFID II builds on stock trading regulation introduced in 2007, and aims to protect investors and make sure that financial markets operate in the fairest and most transparent way possible. Some have summarised it by saying that MiFID II aims to democratise financial markets.
Under the latest rules, trading platforms operated by financial institutions will need to be highly transparent so that investors can be sure that they are getting the fairest deal at any given time.
MiFID II also ensures that regulators have a greater insight into the day-to-day goings on trading floors and sales desks right across the region. That, in theory, should help them to spot any irregularities and identify market abuses early.
Other elements of the regulation mean that trading in bonds and some derivatives will increasingly be done over electronic platforms, rather than over the phone, to make it more transparent and easier to monitor.
Banks and advisors will have greater responsibility to make sure that they are targeting appropriate investors for anything that they sell. The way market research can be obtained will also change, and an EU securities watchdog will have the power to prevent or restrict certain financial products that they deem harmful or overly risky..."
None of that sounds too bad an aim for my simple mind and you've clearly overlooked some of the more laudable aims in presenting it as big business working together to protect itself from competition. It might not happen of course but as it only came in 3 months ago we can't hardly tell its true, long term effect just yet can we?
It's also likely to have a knock on impact on other markets as we see with other areas of EU protections. Or as this writer puts it, "...as the EU will lead the way, it will also provide others with best practices on how to successfully – and as smoothly as possible – implement similar requirements."
So all in all, you've provided an example of brand new, "malign" EU law that might result in lower costs to consumers, increased transparency for investors and greater accountability for those involved in these markets, including those outside the Europe. Doesn't sound too bad to me...
I just don’t understand how selecting de la rue would be standing up for the country. If reports are true there was 120m between the offers!
Does the company being British make it ok to rip off the customer? I fear there is going to be a lot taken under the guise of patriotism in the next 21 months or so.
I think the passport printed in France is wrong but Jesus that Daily Mail front page.
Does anybody actually know anybody who reads it and if so do they go around permanently angry or offended?
My parents love it. The old man sits in front of Sky News...pausing only to tune in to Farage if he's on... reading his Mail, getting himself in to a right state about migrants*, the unemployed, communists, do gooders, political correctness, homosexuals*, the state of the roads, the state of the army, the state of the NHS, the state of West Ham, the state of the state, etc. etc. etc. It's flipping depressing trying to have any sort of serious discussion with him so I've long since given up.
He'll be reading that hateful, ridiculous opinion piece in there today nodding at every word, then trot off to his bowls club to sit around with a bunch of other Mail readers agreeing what a terrible thing it is that our political elites haven't allowed our country to be dicked over for an unnecessary £120m just to provide a warm glow to a few Leavers and a positive headline in their newspaper.
I've offered to buy them a subscription to the Telegraph, the Times, the Independent, Readers Wives, anything....to break the daily cycle of their confirmation bias being reinforced but they love it because it feeds back and legitimises their opinions to them.
*this may not be what he always refers to them as.
I just don’t understand how selecting de la rue would be standing up for the country. If reports are true there was 120m between the offers!
Does the company being British make it ok to rip off the customer? I fear there is going to be a lot taken under the guise of patriotism in the next 21 months or so.
I agree and think we will be seeing a lot of opportunism based on politicians and the press looking for Brexit good news stories over the next few years. Given the duplication of some of the roles and functions currently hosted by the EU that's going to be required, new immigration checks and "frictionless" border management systems, customs declarations requirements, etc. etc. there's going to be a lot of juicy fat contracts up for grabs.
It would be quite fun to use FOI to get some more detail on this passport procurement bid. I've got to go on the website for a new Olympic Stadium FOI, so I might give it a go. They won't give me the bids on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, I am sure, but even the tender document might be interesting to see (it ought to be publicly available anyway, come to think of it)
Can someone remind me which Govt. ministry is responsible? Home Office?
It would be quite fun to use FOI to get some more detail on this passport procurement bid. I've got to go on the website for a new Olympic Stadium FOI, so I might give it a go. They won't give me the bids on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, I am sure, but even the tender document might be interesting to see (it ought to be publicly available anyway, come to think of it)
Can someone remind me which Govt. ministry is responsible? Home Office?
It would be quite fun to use FOI to get some more detail on this passport procurement bid. I've got to go on the website for a new Olympic Stadium FOI, so I might give it a go. They won't give me the bids on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, I am sure, but even the tender document might be interesting to see (it ought to be publicly available anyway, come to think of it)
Can someone remind me which Govt. ministry is responsible? Home Office?
Depending on the value of the contract, it might be worth looking to see if anything is available on the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU), the tender competition (particularly given that it has been won by an EU27 firm) is likely to have been advertised there.
Though the documents may have been moved, once the contract is awarded to the successful tenderer.
Do you think the Daily Mail object to de la rue making passports for other countries?
Yeah but that's different because it's us winning contracts innit! Bit like all the currency we print for other countries too. They should consider themselves lucky we let them pay the Royal Mint for the privilege of us printing their dosh for them.
This whole passport fiasco is Brexit in a microcosm really. Making a huge bloody deal out of something that's ultimately meaningless and sits in my sock drawer for all but a few days a year. It's been waved around by Farage for years as symbolic of EU oppression and totalitarian control, getting half the country "furious" that we couldn't have our old blue/black/whatever colour it was passports back.
Yet it turns out we could have had them all along had we wanted. Much like many other EU "dictats" we've chosen to interpret in one way or another.
Then when do look to replace them with our beloved blue ones, we're not even smart enough to circumvent the EU procurement rules to ensure the contract goes to a UK company. Even though the company appear to have been abusing the political situation to attempt to screw us over. Or maybe we knew exactly what was happening but it's easier to shift the blame onto EU rules? Always good to have the EU lined up to blame for domestic decisions.
Then it turns out the foreign company with the contract will be taken over by another business, the biggest shareholder of which is the French government, the second biggest a French bank....which is also owned by the French government.
All in the name of taking back control.
In the meantime we have the rightwing media, mostly owned by overseas conglomerates or tax exiles, stirring up it's readership about what a disgrace we've not spent the price of a hospital as a result of political opportunism by a commercial organisation.
Blimey, what's going to happen when something a bit more significant than the colour of a piece of card comes along?
Do you think the Daily Mail object to de la rue making passports for other countries?
Yeah but that's different because it's us winning contracts innit! Bit like all the currency we print for other countries too. They should consider themselves lucky we let them pay the Royal Mint for the privilege of us printing their dosh for them.
This whole passport fiasco is Brexit in a microcosm really. Making a huge bloody deal out of something that ultimately meaningless and sits in my sock drawer for all but a few days a year. It's been waved around by Farage for years as symbolic of EU oppression and totalitarian control, getting half the country "furious" that we couldn't have our old blue/black/whatever colour it was passports back.
Yet it turns out we could have had them all along had we wanted. Much like many other EU "dictats" we've chosen to interpret in one way or another.
Then when do look to replace them with our beloved blue ones, we're not even smart enough to circumvent the EU procurement rules to ensure the contract goes to a UK company. Even though the company appear to have been abusing the political situation to attempt to screw us over. Or maybe we knew exactly what was happening but it's easier to shift the blame onto EU rules? Always good to have the EU lined up to blame for domestic decisions.
Then it turns out the foreign company with the contract will be taken over by another business, the biggest shareholder of which is the French government, the second biggest a French bank....which is also owned by the French government.
All in the name of taking back control.
In the meantime we have the rightwing media, mostly owned by overseas conglomerates or tax exiles, stirring up it's readership about what a disgrace we've not spent the price of a hospital as a result of political opportunism by a commercial organisation.
Blimey, what's going to happen when something a bit more significant the the colour of a piece of card comes along?
Not to mention that French company, Thales, built the power and propulsion systems for our shiny new aircraft carriers, as well as providing the UK military's thermal imagine capability, the Watchkeeper drones that the army use for surveillance and targeting and much else to boot.
Just in case we need British based competition for that, see Elbit systems in Oldham (Israel), Leonardo in Basildon and Southampton (Italy), FLIR in New Maldon (US) as for ship power trains...who knows.
So i guess this now points to giving all UK military contracts to BAE Systems (largely owned by US pension funds but with an HMG golden share), who can then sub it all out on the government's behalf. BAE have never proved themselves corrupt though, so it's all in good hands.
Do you think the Daily Mail object to de la rue making passports for other countries?
Yeah but that's different because it's us winning contracts innit! Bit like all the currency we print for other countries too. They should consider themselves lucky we let them pay the Royal Mint for the privilege of us printing their dosh for them.
This whole passport fiasco is Brexit in a microcosm really. Making a huge bloody deal out of something that ultimately meaningless and sits in my sock drawer for all but a few days a year. It's been waved around by Farage for years as symbolic of EU oppression and totalitarian control, getting half the country "furious" that we couldn't have our old blue/black/whatever colour it was passports back.
Yet it turns out we could have had them all along had we wanted. Much like many other EU "dictats" we've chosen to interpret in one way or another.
Then when do look to replace them with our beloved blue ones, we're not even smart enough to circumvent the EU procurement rules to ensure the contract goes to a UK company. Even though the company appear to have been abusing the political situation to attempt to screw us over. Or maybe we knew exactly what was happening but it's easier to shift the blame onto EU rules? Always good to have the EU lined up to blame for domestic decisions.
Then it turns out the foreign company with the contract will be taken over by another business, the biggest shareholder of which is the French government, the second biggest a French bank....which is also owned by the French government.
All in the name of taking back control.
In the meantime we have the rightwing media, mostly owned by overseas conglomerates or tax exiles, stirring up it's readership about what a disgrace we've not spent the price of a hospital as a result of political opportunism by a commercial organisation.
Blimey, what's going to happen when something a bit more significant the the colour of a piece of card comes along?
Not to mention that French company, Thales, built the power and propulsion systems for our shiny new aircraft carriers, as well as providing the UK military's thermal imagine capability, the Watchkeeper drones that the army use for surveillance and targeting and much else to boot.
Just in case we need British based competition for that, see Elbit systems in Oldham (Israel), Leonardo in Basildon and Southampton (Italy), FLIR in New Maldon (US) as for ship power trains...who knows.
So i guess this now points to giving all UK military contracts to BAE Systems (largely owned by US pension funds but with an HMG golden share), who can then sub it all out on the government's behalf. BAE have never proved themselves corrupt though, so it's all in good hands.
Those frenchies are going to regret that when our aircraft carrier and drones are giving their fishermen hell when they try to enter our fishing grounds.
It would be quite fun to use FOI to get some more detail on this passport procurement bid. I've got to go on the website for a new Olympic Stadium FOI, so I might give it a go. They won't give me the bids on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, I am sure, but even the tender document might be interesting to see (it ought to be publicly available anyway, come to think of it)
Can someone remind me which Govt. ministry is responsible? Home Office?
Doubt it’s available. Wouldn’t commercial sensitivity prevent an FOI request ?
Comments
The funniest thing about the De la Rue interview, is that the interviewer, the always excellent Justin Webb, pointed out that the French have said they wouldn't give out their passport printing to international tender, because they consider passports a matter of national security. It would appear that the French already have quite enough control (as indeed they do over their energy and utility companies, which they consider to be strategic national assets) . And curiously, the little green men in Brussels have not done anything to try and wrest control from them.
If the UK Government had decided that control of passport printing (or ownership of key infrastructure) was a national security priority, with a robust legal defence, should it be challenged (because that is another thing that the EU rules allow), then it could quite happily retain direct state control/ownership within the UK.
Edit - there is also nothing in EU rules that prevents state owned ventures from being awarded contracts (as long as this is the most economically advantageous method).
But you are quite right.
Trouble is i guess, if you pay for more expensive passports, then it eats further into that 'brexit dividend' that's going to soften the blow of our leaving...
"MiFID II Regulations that have taken 7 years to bring to the table are supposedly to improve transparency of asset managers activities and costs. It will not allow firms to use research information they have received in return for providing services, they must pay up front for a specific research resource. Trouble is it's the SME market which relies on small brokers to help them raise capital using the research obtained third hand. The large companies pay zillions to professionals for bespoke research already.
So SME's are going to struggle without the ability to raise capital on the European exchanges, being unable to afford the fees for bespoke research they need to support capital raising initiatives. Smaller firms in the financial services area will be unable to afford the regulatory compliance costs associated with record keeping that in 99% of cases will never be of any value.
Consumers may well benefit from lower costs in the long run, but who pays for it? - small businesses.
Is that specific enough?"
Yes, it's VERY specific thanks and the end result from what you're saying is that EU citizens may end making a saving. Reading around it, because I know nothing about it in all honesty, it's aims are to increase transparency and traceability amongst other things. Or as the Independant and other sources put it...
"MiFID II builds on stock trading regulation introduced in 2007, and aims to protect investors and make sure that financial markets operate in the fairest and most transparent way possible. Some have summarised it by saying that MiFID II aims to democratise financial markets.
Under the latest rules, trading platforms operated by financial institutions will need to be highly transparent so that investors can be sure that they are getting the fairest deal at any given time.
MiFID II also ensures that regulators have a greater insight into the day-to-day goings on trading floors and sales desks right across the region. That, in theory, should help them to spot any irregularities and identify market abuses early.
Other elements of the regulation mean that trading in bonds and some derivatives will increasingly be done over electronic platforms, rather than over the phone, to make it more transparent and easier to monitor.
Banks and advisors will have greater responsibility to make sure that they are targeting appropriate investors for anything that they sell. The way market research can be obtained will also change, and an EU securities watchdog will have the power to prevent or restrict certain financial products that they deem harmful or overly risky..."
independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/mifid-ii-2018-what-is-how-effect-financial-investments-markets-in-financial-instruments-directive-a8139361.html
None of that sounds too bad an aim for my simple mind and you've clearly overlooked some of the more laudable aims in presenting it as big business working together to protect itself from competition. It might not happen of course but as it only came in 3 months ago we can't hardly tell its true, long term effect just yet can we?
It's also likely to have a knock on impact on other markets as we see with other areas of EU protections. Or as this writer puts it, "...as the EU will lead the way, it will also provide others with best practices on how to successfully – and as smoothly as possible – implement similar requirements."
https://themarketmogul.com/mifid-ii-research-global-impact/
So all in all, you've provided an example of brand new, "malign" EU law that might result in lower costs to consumers, increased transparency for investors and greater accountability for those involved in these markets, including those outside the Europe. Doesn't sound too bad to me...
Does the company being British make it ok to rip off the customer? I fear there is going to be a lot taken under the guise of patriotism in the next 21 months or so.
Does anybody actually know anybody who reads it and if so do they go around permanently angry or offended?
He'll be reading that hateful, ridiculous opinion piece in there today nodding at every word, then trot off to his bowls club to sit around with a bunch of other Mail readers agreeing what a terrible thing it is that our political elites haven't allowed our country to be dicked over for an unnecessary £120m just to provide a warm glow to a few Leavers and a positive headline in their newspaper.
I've offered to buy them a subscription to the Telegraph, the Times, the Independent, Readers Wives, anything....to break the daily cycle of their confirmation bias being reinforced but they love it because it feeds back and legitimises their opinions to them.
*this may not be what he always refers to them as.
Can someone remind me which Govt. ministry is responsible? Home Office?
Though the documents may have been moved, once the contract is awarded to the successful tenderer.
This whole passport fiasco is Brexit in a microcosm really. Making a huge bloody deal out of something that's ultimately meaningless and sits in my sock drawer for all but a few days a year. It's been waved around by Farage for years as symbolic of EU oppression and totalitarian control, getting half the country "furious" that we couldn't have our old blue/black/whatever colour it was passports back.
Yet it turns out we could have had them all along had we wanted. Much like many other EU "dictats" we've chosen to interpret in one way or another.
Then when do look to replace them with our beloved blue ones, we're not even smart enough to circumvent the EU procurement rules to ensure the contract goes to a UK company. Even though the company appear to have been abusing the political situation to attempt to screw us over. Or maybe we knew exactly what was happening but it's easier to shift the blame onto EU rules? Always good to have the EU lined up to blame for domestic decisions.
Then it turns out the foreign company with the contract will be taken over by another business, the biggest shareholder of which is the French government, the second biggest a French bank....which is also owned by the French government.
All in the name of taking back control.
In the meantime we have the rightwing media, mostly owned by overseas conglomerates or tax exiles, stirring up it's readership about what a disgrace we've not spent the price of a hospital as a result of political opportunism by a commercial organisation.
Blimey, what's going to happen when something a bit more significant than the colour of a piece of card comes along?
Just in case we need British based competition for that, see Elbit systems in Oldham (Israel), Leonardo in Basildon and Southampton (Italy), FLIR in New Maldon (US) as for ship power trains...who knows.
So i guess this now points to giving all UK military contracts to BAE Systems (largely owned by US pension funds but with an HMG golden share), who can then sub it all out on the government's behalf. BAE have never proved themselves corrupt though, so it's all in good hands.