Whilst I am not particularly a 'political animal', I do not understand why people think that the Irish Rep/NI border is a major issue.
If I travel now from the UK to another EU or non-EU country, I have to show my passport or similar ID to a Immigration Officer in the latter country, which incurs some delay. If I buy goods over a certain value, I have to declare them to Revenue and Customs upon entry to that country. Equally, commercial vehicles, say crossing the English Channel have to show a manifest to Revenue and Customs upon arrival in the distant country and some will be pulled over for inspection.
If say DHL/FedEx etc import parcel traffic into the UK, they collect the information on each consignment in the country of origin, download it to their agent in the UK. As soon as the flight carrying those consignments hits UK air space, the computer package calculates the import duty required and selects a small number for physical inspection by Revenue and Customs. Little delay is incurred by this method.
What therefore is wrong with the same system being employed upon the Irish Rep/NI border. In doing so, there would be no more disadvantage than at any other border, other than the recognition that Irish border is more porous, but that was ever the case.
I must be missing the point. Someone please enlighten me. Thanks.
The Government's information suggests that the current process for parcels from outside the EU (which, without being in the Customs Union/Single Market, would be the regime established for EU parcels) means that all parcels requiring payment of duty must be retained by the courier. From personal experience, it is not a "little delay". https://gov.uk/goods-sent-from-abroad/tax-and-duty
In general, regarding trade, the issue with the border between the UK and the EU is that goods are now freely moved between member states (the frictionless border so beloved of T May)(https://gov.uk/guidance/transit-and-other-suspensive-regimes). This can include goods imported from outside the EU, under the Union Transit and Common Transit systems, that allow for relatively unhindered movement of goods within the EU, EFTA, Turkey (for industrial and processed agricultural products only), Macedonia and Serbia (the duties, etc., on non-EU products being suspended until they reach their final destination). Where duty payments have already been made, goods imported from outside the EU can circulate freely (because of the common external tariffs).
The way that the EU describes the operation of the Customs Union is very clear and, I would argue, informative - https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/customs_en (in the pdf). As it points out: In 1993, customs controls at internal borders were abolished and long queues of commercial vehicles at border crossings are now a distant memory
Unless the UK remains in the Single Market/Customs Union, or negotiates some kind of special status (which I believe was something that the Government is keen to investigate, but I fear it is unlikely to gain any real traction in the EU), this will change.
The issue at the borders will not just be the value of goods being transported (though even families on cross-border shopping trips could find that they are importing more than they are allowed), but the wider range of product safety, food health (my favourite thing, sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures), place of origin, etc.
It would be reasonable to assume that every commercial vehicle will be obliged to be accompanied by suitable documentation (which will have to be checked, at least periodically), with the best will in the world, when officials talk about 30 seconds to clear a load, that is a reference only to the time taken to scan and process the forms, not the amount of time that a lorry will be stopped while clearing customs. Even minimal checking of manifests would start to create backlogs on roads and motorways. Delays at ports for commercial traffic will have knock-on effects on other travellers, etc.
The Government is talking about use of technology, trusted importers and the like (but even they will have to subject to occasional physical compliance checks), who would not be required, in the main, to clear customs at the port or an inland customs hub; though it is the same UK Government that is being fined for failing to adequately screen Chinese imports (so some will take their assertions with a pinch of salt). The experience of the Norway/Sweden border would suggest that the numbers of vehicles requiring checks, and the infrastructure needed, will be higher than politicans would suggest (because a much larger volume of imports will be covered).
In Ireland, there are no customs controls on the land border, vehicles do not even slow down to cross from one jurisdiction to the other. Brexit will require both parties to put in place sufficient infrastructure to manage the cross-border trade. Should the UK and US agree a trade deal, as Wilbur Ross has outlined last week, the need to inspect both the paperwork and the cargo of much of the commercial traffic entering the Republic will be dramatically increased. Some might say this is the EU/Republic's problem, and it will be one additional concern for them, but it will have a damaging impact on Northern Irish agribusiness. In any event, the reintroduction of customs controls would lead to an immediate and very visible change to the current situation (a change that would be mirrored at Dover and other ports).
If, like me, you believe that no trade deal will be agreed, the UK will be subject to WTO rules (assuming schedules can be agreed). In this case, the UK Government will have to implement border controls/tariffs, or else allow all other WTO members unfettered (frictionless even) access to the UK market. And WTO tariffs would also be very damaging for agribusiness in particular, as the tariffs on processed foodstuffs are higher.
There is one thing quoting governments advice and one knowing the actual reality. The reality is that most parcels arriving via say DHL and from outside of the EU (and those within) do not go anywhere need a customs building. The exception being those few which are selected by the customs interface system for physical examination. Parcels upon which duty needs to be paid are cleared as soon as the courier company (DHL) receives payment from the clearance agent working on behalf of the consignee. This can be less than one hour. Parcelforce being a quasi government organisation (part of the Civil Service until 1969?) has a different system.
My knowledge on this limited part of exporting/importing procedures is based upon my many years as International Datapost Manager for Parcelforce. I used to advise other postal administrations on best practice for customs clearance.
So far as the rest of your posting is concerned, I have no expertise on the subject matter and thank you for the advice/knowledge.
Within the last year i have travelled within the EU with no checks. Those checks I have had were security when flying. Nothing between France and Belgium for example.
I specifically referred to travel between UK and another EU country. Border checks are in place.
A solution on UK population control = proper sex ed, proper access to contraception, ending poverty on a nationwide scale. Although if you want to believe all that shit about the invading hordes then you're beyond arguing with
I agree about sex-ex. I think we still have the highest percentage of teenage pregnancies in Europe, which is poor show.
As for the invading hordes, I guess you don't believe the annual net migration figures - so you are right, it's not worth arguing over.
As I mentioned before, without knowing how many people leave the UK to settle in the EU (ie net EU emigration) then any debate about whether EU immigration is too high will be skewed by this. There doesn't seem to be a reliable measure for this as the Government do not seem to count who is leaving the country permanently.
Maybe, but the UK makes a record of arrivals/departures at border points - and if you leave and don"t return I guess there is a time period when they count you as gone.
From the other side of the coin, I expect EU countries register a U.K. inhabitant.
In France you register at the Town Hall if you are seeking work/working. In Spain you add yourself to the Padron or register as a resident. Nothing is compulsory but it is hard to stay below the radar for very long unless you are moving around.
In Spain you cannot get electricity/water/ or pay council tax without obtaining a Spanish identity number.
Whilst I am not particularly a 'political animal', I do not understand why people think that the Irish Rep/NI border is a major issue.
If I travel now from the UK to another EU or non-EU country, I have to show my passport or similar ID to a Immigration Officer in the latter country, which incurs some delay. If I buy goods over a certain value, I have to declare them to Revenue and Customs upon entry to that country. Equally, commercial vehicles, say crossing the English Channel have to show a manifest to Revenue and Customs upon arrival in the distant country and some will be pulled over for inspection.
If say DHL/FedEx etc import parcel traffic into the UK, they collect the information on each consignment in the country of origin, download it to their agent in the UK. As soon as the flight carrying those consignments hits UK air space, the computer package calculates the import duty required and selects a small number for physical inspection by Revenue and Customs. Little delay is incurred by this method.
What therefore is wrong with the same system being employed upon the Irish Rep/NI border. In doing so, there would be no more disadvantage than at any other border, other than the recognition that Irish border is more porous, but that was ever the case.
I must be missing the point. Someone please enlighten me. Thanks.
The Government's information suggests that the current process for parcels from outside the EU (which, without being in the Customs Union/Single Market, would be the regime established for EU parcels) means that all parcels requiring payment of duty must be retained by the courier. From personal experience, it is not a "little delay". https://gov.uk/goods-sent-from-abroad/tax-and-duty
In general, regarding trade, the issue with the border between the UK and the EU is that goods are now freely moved between member states (the frictionless border so beloved of T May)(https://gov.uk/guidance/transit-and-other-suspensive-regimes). This can include goods imported from outside the EU, under the Union Transit and Common Transit systems, that allow for relatively unhindered movement of goods within the EU, EFTA, Turkey (for industrial and processed agricultural products only), Macedonia and Serbia (the duties, etc., on non-EU products being suspended until they reach their final destination). Where duty payments have already been made, goods imported from outside the EU can circulate freely (because of the common external tariffs).
The way that the EU describes the operation of the Customs Union is very clear and, I would argue, informative - https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/customs_en (in the pdf). As it points out: In 1993, customs controls at internal borders were abolished and long queues of commercial vehicles at border crossings are now a distant memory
Unless the UK remains in the Single Market/Customs Union, or negotiates some kind of special status (which I believe was something that the Government is keen to investigate, but I fear it is unlikely to gain any real traction in the EU), this will change.
The issue at the borders will not just be the value of goods being transported (though even families on cross-border shopping trips could find that they are importing more than they are allowed), but the wider range of product safety, food health (my favourite thing, sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures), place of origin, etc.
It would be reasonable to assume that every commercial vehicle will be obliged to be accompanied by suitable documentation (which will have to be checked, at least periodically), with the best will in the world, when officials talk about 30 seconds to clear a load, that is a reference only to the time taken to scan and process the forms, not the amount of time that a lorry will be stopped while clearing customs. Even minimal checking of manifests would start to create backlogs on roads and motorways. Delays at ports for commercial traffic will have knock-on effects on other travellers, etc.
The Government is talking about use of technology, trusted importers and the like (but even they will have to subject to occasional physical compliance checks), who would not be required, in the main, to clear customs at the port or an inland customs hub; though it is the same UK Government that is being fined for failing to adequately screen Chinese imports (so some will take their assertions with a pinch of salt). The experience of the Norway/Sweden border would suggest that the numbers of vehicles requiring checks, and the infrastructure needed, will be higher than politicans would suggest (because a much larger volume of imports will be covered).
In Ireland, there are no customs controls on the land border, vehicles do not even slow down to cross from one jurisdiction to the other. Brexit will require both parties to put in place sufficient infrastructure to manage the cross-border trade. Should the UK and US agree a trade deal, as Wilbur Ross has outlined last week, the need to inspect both the paperwork and the cargo of much of the commercial traffic entering the Republic will be dramatically increased. Some might say this is the EU/Republic's problem, and it will be one additional concern for them, but it will have a damaging impact on Northern Irish agribusiness. In any event, the reintroduction of customs controls would lead to an immediate and very visible change to the current situation (a change that would be mirrored at Dover and other ports).
If, like me, you believe that no trade deal will be agreed, the UK will be subject to WTO rules (assuming schedules can be agreed). In this case, the UK Government will have to implement border controls/tariffs, or else allow all other WTO members unfettered (frictionless even) access to the UK market. And WTO tariffs would also be very damaging for agribusiness in particular, as the tariffs on processed foodstuffs are higher.
There is one thing quoting governments advice and one knowing the actual reality. The reality is that most parcels arriving via say DHL and from outside of the EU (and those within) do not go anywhere need a customs building. The exception being those few which are selected by the customs interface system for physical examination. Parcels upon which duty needs to be paid are cleared as soon as the courier company (DHL) receives payment from the clearance agent working on behalf of the consignee. This can be less than one hour. Parcelforce being a quasi government organisation (part of the Civil Service until 1969?) has a different system.
My knowledge on this limited part of exporting/importing procedures is based upon my many years as International Datapost Manager for Parcelforce. I used to advise other postal administrations on best practice for customs clearance.
So far as the rest of your posting is concerned, I have no expertise on the subject matter and thank you for the advice/knowledge.
In fairness, my experience was generally DHL (delivery driver, many moons ago) and Parcelforce. I'd be inclined to suggest that, in general, they will have different types of customer.
The interesting thing will be the increase in volume of parcels that will be subject to customs clearance (with parcels from the EU being treated in the same way as those from the US).
Of course, I'm sure every ebay retailer, for example, will be absolutely honest in their description of the contents and value of any parcels they send.
Where do we go from here? On this thread alone, it varies from Armageddon to Nirvana. As I have stated on a number of occasions, I do not believe this is over yet … in fact, far from it.
The next step … be it a new referendum (unlikely), a General Election (doubtful but feasible), a vote in Parliament (probable but not sure what good it would do), a consensus and compromise on both sides UK & EU (virtually certain in my opinion) … will provide more clarity.
One thing we all agree on, as do most Europeans, is that the EU needs an overhaul – it is no longer fit for purpose. The most recent announcements were made by Macron, not a person I particularly trust, but he talks a lot of sense about how the EU must change to progress – and Merkel feels the same way. But it is not going to be easy for the EU to metamorphose – decades of building the complex and myriad layers cannot be unpicked simply or quickly.
In order for all countries to be in accord, political union is a must – this implies monetary, banking and fiscal union – which I do not support. I do not see how the EU, with its current infrastructure and policies, can survive otherwise.
My vision of the EU has always been about trade. I have previously provided my thoughts in some detail as to why I do not support the EU ‘trade’ approach. It should be reconciled with the aims of global free trade as upheld by the WTO (in particular, implementing legally binding commitments not to raise tariffs). I intensely dislike trade tariffs and non-tariff barriers.
I am aware others have argued with me on this point, but I do not accept that the EU is a free trade area in the real sense. If it were, I would be much more supportive. In fact, the EU is alone in its particular concept of a Free Trade Area. EFTA, NAFTA, ASEAN, MERCOSUR, all allow free movement of goods and services but differentiate in that they do not force members’ tariffs or other trade barriers to be the same. Just as importantly, they allow members to independently negotiate trade agreements with countries outside their own trade zone. In other words, all other Free Trade Areas outside the EU do not prevent members from making Free Trade Agreements with other countries.
There is a way to make the EU/UK relationship work and I am far from being the first to mention it. As Nick Clegg stated recently, the Brexit vote, in an ironic twist of fate, may help to provoke the very EU reforms that many of us have been seeking. In fact, this is exactly the reason why we could still stay close to the EU and … say it quietly … not leave.
If we can get to the stage where our membership is purely about trade, and the EU becomes a real Free Trade Area as I outlined above, I would certainly have a re-think. But to make that work means that we must no longer have a ‘single-track’ EU. To be fair, it has already been proved that not all countries can be treated the same nor can all countries work in the same way. So why not accept that not all countries within the EU have the same aim? Some may want fiscal union, others may not. Some will want the Euro, others will not. We do not all have to go for the exact same objectives. The idea, as a number of commentators have raised in the past, is a ‘multi-speed’ EU. Twenty plus years ago, the French PM propounded that the EU should be made up of three concentric circles, an inner core of the single currency, a middle tier of those in the EU but not the single currency, and an outer circle of non-members with close links to the EU. This is an idea that I like – many have suggested it since, but it has never obtained the requisite support. Maybe it will now?
In his book, Nick Clegg highlights that the Brussels-based think tank Bruegel published, in August 2016, a paper calling for a ‘continental partnership’ – a new form of ‘outer circle’ for a post-Brexit UK and other non-EU countries that want to belong to the Single Market and have some say over its rules but don’t want to play a part in the political institutions of the EU. Then, in March 2017, the European Commission published a document setting out five scenarios for the future of the EU, proposing sub-groups of member states pursuing their own integration agendas - this is far more palatable to me: a ‘multi-speed’ Europe’.
So I am open to changing my mind despite what some have said. The key is that the EU must look and feel different in order for us to stay a part of it. And it needs to change anyway, so why can it not happen? I worry that the EU will prove to be too intractable to change but I also have an inward optimism that it will.
The way forward is a ‘multi-speed’ Europe with each member country free to implement its own trade policy, as is the case with all other Free Trade Areas. We do not need to be, nor should we be, a core member of the EU – but we also do not necessarily have to be on the outside, looking in. We just need to choose which of the ‘concentric circles’ we wish to be part of – provided the EU has the will and tenacity to build the ‘circles’. I am sure that many countries in Europe would welcome such an approach. The ‘inner circle’ can keep moving towards deeper economic and monetary integration – as Macron proposes. True negotiation means compromise … on all sides.
Oh, and by the way, I am sure that this will also solve the Northern Ireland issue.
Schopenhauer stated that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. The truth is that there is an answer … the question is, do we have the will to take it forward?
It is an interesting concept, a multi-speed Europe. Or maybe more accurately variable speeds. Everybody plays Judo, but you have to earn the right to progress to black belt level if you choose to do so. A structure that resembles the gear equipment on a bicycle, one of progress, or one that requires moving through the levels like Masonic Membership. If I understand the concept correctly. I believe in practical terms a multi speed Europe may be cumbersome, even more if individual countries have a pick and mix approach, but it still might be a good idea if it is understandable. I am cautious that it might be a structure that would have loads of loopholes that can be exploited in some way, and as it seems so complex...well, as my old Dad used to say 'if it ain't there, it can't go wrong'. Overall it looks like something that will require rules, and a multi national court with the possibility of sanctions in order to enforce them.
The Government's information suggests that the current process for parcels from outside the EU (which, without being in the Customs Union/Single Market, would be the regime established for EU parcels) means that all parcels requiring payment of duty must be retained by the courier. From personal experience, it is not a "little delay". https://gov.uk/goods-sent-from-abroad/tax-and-duty
In general, regarding trade, the issue with the border between the UK and the EU is that goods are now freely moved between member states (the frictionless border so beloved of T May)(https://gov.uk/guidance/transit-and-other-suspensive-regimes). This can include goods imported from outside the EU, under the Union Transit and Common Transit systems, that allow for relatively unhindered movement of goods within the EU, EFTA, Turkey (for industrial and processed agricultural products only), Macedonia and Serbia (the duties, etc., on non-EU products being suspended until they reach their final destination). Where duty payments have already been made, goods imported from outside the EU can circulate freely (because of the common external tariffs).
The way that the EU describes the operation of the Customs Union is very clear and, I would argue, informative - https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/customs_en (in the pdf). As it points out: In 1993, customs controls at internal borders were abolished and long queues of commercial vehicles at border crossings are now a distant memory
Unless the UK remains in the Single Market/Customs Union, or negotiates some kind of special status (which I believe was something that the Government is keen to investigate, but I fear it is unlikely to gain any real traction in the EU), this will change.
The issue at the borders will not just be the value of goods being transported (though even families on cross-border shopping trips could find that they are importing more than they are allowed), but the wider range of product safety, food health (my favourite thing, sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures), place of origin, etc.
It would be reasonable to assume that every commercial vehicle will be obliged to be accompanied by suitable documentation (which will have to be checked, at least periodically), with the best will in the world, when officials talk about 30 seconds to clear a load, that is a reference only to the time taken to scan and process the forms, not the amount of time that a lorry will be stopped while clearing customs. Even minimal checking of manifests would start to create backlogs on roads and motorways. Delays at ports for commercial traffic will have knock-on effects on other travellers, etc.
The Government is talking about use of technology, trusted importers and the like (but even they will have to subject to occasional physical compliance checks), who would not be required, in the main, to clear customs at the port or an inland customs hub; though it is the same UK Government that is being fined for failing to adequately screen Chinese imports (so some will take their assertions with a pinch of salt). The experience of the Norway/Sweden border would suggest that the numbers of vehicles requiring checks, and the infrastructure needed, will be higher than politicans would suggest (because a much larger volume of imports will be covered).
In Ireland, there are no customs controls on the land border, vehicles do not even slow down to cross from one jurisdiction to the other. Brexit will require both parties to put in place sufficient infrastructure to manage the cross-border trade. Should the UK and US agree a trade deal, as Wilbur Ross has outlined last week, the need to inspect both the paperwork and the cargo of much of the commercial traffic entering the Republic will be dramatically increased. Some might say this is the EU/Republic's problem, and it will be one additional concern for them, but it will have a damaging impact on Northern Irish agribusiness. In any event, the reintroduction of customs controls would lead to an immediate and very visible change to the current situation (a change that would be mirrored at Dover and other ports).
If, like me, you believe that no trade deal will be agreed, the UK will be subject to WTO rules (assuming schedules can be agreed). In this case, the UK Government will have to implement border controls/tariffs, or else allow all other WTO members unfettered (frictionless even) access to the UK market. And WTO tariffs would also be very damaging for agribusiness in particular, as the tariffs on processed foodstuffs are higher.
There is one thing quoting governments advice and one knowing the actual reality. The reality is that most parcels arriving via say DHL and from outside of the EU (and those within) do not go anywhere need a customs building. The exception being those few which are selected by the customs interface system for physical examination. Parcels upon which duty needs to be paid are cleared as soon as the courier company (DHL) receives payment from the clearance agent working on behalf of the consignee. This can be less than one hour. Parcelforce being a quasi government organisation (part of the Civil Service until 1969?) has a different system.
My knowledge on this limited part of exporting/importing procedures is based upon my many years as International Datapost Manager for Parcelforce. I used to advise other postal administrations on best practice for customs clearance.
So far as the rest of your posting is concerned, I have no expertise on the subject matter and thank you for the advice/knowledge.
In fairness, my experience was generally DHL (delivery driver, many moons ago) and Parcelforce. I'd be inclined to suggest that, in general, they will have different types of customer.
The interesting thing will be the increase in volume of parcels that will be subject to customs clearance (with parcels from the EU being treated in the same way as those from the US).
Of course, I'm sure every ebay retailer, for example, will be absolutely honest in their description of the contents and value of any parcels they send.
Agreed. DHL traffic would primarily be from regular business customers, whereas Parcelforce would have a greater percentage of casual business customers and/or social parcels.
A solution on UK population control = proper sex ed, proper access to contraception, ending poverty on a nationwide scale. Although if you want to believe all that shit about the invading hordes then you're beyond arguing with
I agree about sex-ex. I think we still have the highest percentage of teenage pregnancies in Europe, which is poor show.
As for the invading hordes, I guess you don't believe the annual net migration figures - so you are right, it's not worth arguing over.
As I mentioned before, without knowing how many people leave the UK to settle in the EU (ie net EU emigration) then any debate about whether EU immigration is too high will be skewed by this. There doesn't seem to be a reliable measure for this as the Government do not seem to count who is leaving the country permanently.
Maybe, but the UK makes a record of arrivals/departures at border points - and if you leave and don"t return I guess there is a time period when they count you as gone.
From the other side of the coin, I expect EU countries register a U.K. inhabitant.
In France you register at the Town Hall if you are seeking work/working. In Spain you add yourself to the Padron or register as a resident. Nothing is compulsory but it is hard to stay below the radar for very long unless you are moving around.
In Spain you cannot get electricity/water/ or pay council tax without obtaining a Spanish identity number.
The problem is they are not counted in the same way. EU citizens aren't counted in and out the way you'd like or even think. Airports do border checks but this isn't particularly robust data. Passport checks for those arriving and departing by sea or the tunnel are hit and miss and are not reliable. The Government openly admits that it has lost track of who is coming and going. Immigration figures cannot really be relied upon - they are much more likely to include people here for short stays than those actually permanently settling here.
A solution on UK population control = proper sex ed, proper access to contraception, ending poverty on a nationwide scale. Although if you want to believe all that shit about the invading hordes then you're beyond arguing with
I agree about sex-ex. I think we still have the highest percentage of teenage pregnancies in Europe, which is poor show.
As for the invading hordes, I guess you don't believe the annual net migration figures - so you are right, it's not worth arguing over.
As I mentioned before, without knowing how many people leave the UK to settle in the EU (ie net EU emigration) then any debate about whether EU immigration is too high will be skewed by this. There doesn't seem to be a reliable measure for this as the Government do not seem to count who is leaving the country permanently.
Maybe, but the UK makes a record of arrivals/departures at border points - and if you leave and don"t return I guess there is a time period when they count you as gone.
From the other side of the coin, I expect EU countries register a U.K. inhabitant.
In France you register at the Town Hall if you are seeking work/working. In Spain you add yourself to the Padron or register as a resident. Nothing is compulsory but it is hard to stay below the radar for very long unless you are moving around.
In Spain you cannot get electricity/water/ or pay council tax without obtaining a Spanish identity number.
The problem is they are not counted in the same way. EU citizens aren't counted in and out the way you'd like or even think. Airports do border checks but this isn't particularly robust data. Passport checks for those arriving and departing by sea or the tunnel are hit and miss and are not reliable. The Government openly admits that it has lost track of who is coming and going. Immigration figures cannot really be relied upon - they are much more likely to include people here for short stays than those actually permanently settling here.
I agree that visitors from the EU coming in via the ports are almost certainly not accurately counted. However, to be employed in the UK a migrant (EU or otherwise) must register with HMRC and obtain an NI number - irrespective of whether or not they were counted in at a ferry or the tunnel. Those totals will be accurate.
A solution on UK population control = proper sex ed, proper access to contraception, ending poverty on a nationwide scale. Although if you want to believe all that shit about the invading hordes then you're beyond arguing with
I agree about sex-ex. I think we still have the highest percentage of teenage pregnancies in Europe, which is poor show.
As for the invading hordes, I guess you don't believe the annual net migration figures - so you are right, it's not worth arguing over.
As I mentioned before, without knowing how many people leave the UK to settle in the EU (ie net EU emigration) then any debate about whether EU immigration is too high will be skewed by this. There doesn't seem to be a reliable measure for this as the Government do not seem to count who is leaving the country permanently.
Maybe, but the UK makes a record of arrivals/departures at border points - and if you leave and don"t return I guess there is a time period when they count you as gone.
From the other side of the coin, I expect EU countries register a U.K. inhabitant.
In France you register at the Town Hall if you are seeking work/working. In Spain you add yourself to the Padron or register as a resident. Nothing is compulsory but it is hard to stay below the radar for very long unless you are moving around.
In Spain you cannot get electricity/water/ or pay council tax without obtaining a Spanish identity number.
The problem is they are not counted in the same way. EU citizens aren't counted in and out the way you'd like or even think. Airports do border checks but this isn't particularly robust data. Passport checks for those arriving and departing by sea or the tunnel are hit and miss and are not reliable. The Government openly admits that it has lost track of who is coming and going. Immigration figures cannot really be relied upon - they are much more likely to include people here for short stays than those actually permanently settling here.
I agree that visitors from the EU coming in via the ports are almost certainly not accurately counted. However, to be employed in the UK a migrant (EU or otherwise) must register with HMRC and obtain an NI number - irrespective of whether or not they were counted in at a ferry or the tunnel. Those totals will be accurate.
I have a Spanish NIE, equivalent of an NI number, purely because I own a property there. I've never lived or worked there, so identification numbers can't be used as any sort of measure.
A solution on UK population control = proper sex ed, proper access to contraception, ending poverty on a nationwide scale. Although if you want to believe all that shit about the invading hordes then you're beyond arguing with
I agree about sex-ex. I think we still have the highest percentage of teenage pregnancies in Europe, which is poor show.
As for the invading hordes, I guess you don't believe the annual net migration figures - so you are right, it's not worth arguing over.
As I mentioned before, without knowing how many people leave the UK to settle in the EU (ie net EU emigration) then any debate about whether EU immigration is too high will be skewed by this. There doesn't seem to be a reliable measure for this as the Government do not seem to count who is leaving the country permanently.
Maybe, but the UK makes a record of arrivals/departures at border points - and if you leave and don"t return I guess there is a time period when they count you as gone.
From the other side of the coin, I expect EU countries register a U.K. inhabitant.
In France you register at the Town Hall if you are seeking work/working. In Spain you add yourself to the Padron or register as a resident. Nothing is compulsory but it is hard to stay below the radar for very long unless you are moving around.
In Spain you cannot get electricity/water/ or pay council tax without obtaining a Spanish identity number.
The problem is they are not counted in the same way. EU citizens aren't counted in and out the way you'd like or even think. Airports do border checks but this isn't particularly robust data. Passport checks for those arriving and departing by sea or the tunnel are hit and miss and are not reliable. The Government openly admits that it has lost track of who is coming and going. Immigration figures cannot really be relied upon - they are much more likely to include people here for short stays than those actually permanently settling here.
I agree that visitors from the EU coming in via the ports are almost certainly not accurately counted. However, to be employed in the UK a migrant (EU or otherwise) must register with HMRC and obtain an NI number - irrespective of whether or not they were counted in at a ferry or the tunnel. Those totals will be accurate.
I have a Spanish NIE, equivalent of an NI number, purely because I own a property there. I've never lived or worked there, so identification numbers can't be used as any sort of measure.
Yes I'm familiar with Spanish property conditions but we are talking about UK immigration, not Spanish. You don't need an NI number to buy a property in the UK - but you do need one to work.
A solution on UK population control = proper sex ed, proper access to contraception, ending poverty on a nationwide scale. Although if you want to believe all that shit about the invading hordes then you're beyond arguing with
I agree about sex-ex. I think we still have the highest percentage of teenage pregnancies in Europe, which is poor show.
As for the invading hordes, I guess you don't believe the annual net migration figures - so you are right, it's not worth arguing over.
As I mentioned before, without knowing how many people leave the UK to settle in the EU (ie net EU emigration) then any debate about whether EU immigration is too high will be skewed by this. There doesn't seem to be a reliable measure for this as the Government do not seem to count who is leaving the country permanently.
Maybe, but the UK makes a record of arrivals/departures at border points - and if you leave and don"t return I guess there is a time period when they count you as gone.
From the other side of the coin, I expect EU countries register a U.K. inhabitant.
In France you register at the Town Hall if you are seeking work/working. In Spain you add yourself to the Padron or register as a resident. Nothing is compulsory but it is hard to stay below the radar for very long unless you are moving around.
In Spain you cannot get electricity/water/ or pay council tax without obtaining a Spanish identity number.
The problem is they are not counted in the same way. EU citizens aren't counted in and out the way you'd like or even think. Airports do border checks but this isn't particularly robust data. Passport checks for those arriving and departing by sea or the tunnel are hit and miss and are not reliable. The Government openly admits that it has lost track of who is coming and going. Immigration figures cannot really be relied upon - they are much more likely to include people here for short stays than those actually permanently settling here.
I agree that visitors from the EU coming in via the ports are almost certainly not accurately counted. However, to be employed in the UK a migrant (EU or otherwise) must register with HMRC and obtain an NI number - irrespective of whether or not they were counted in at a ferry or the tunnel. Those totals will be accurate.
I have a Spanish NIE, equivalent of an NI number, purely because I own a property there. I've never lived or worked there, so identification numbers can't be used as any sort of measure.
Yes I'm familiar with Spanish property conditions but we are talking about UK immigration, not Spanish. You don't need an NI number to buy a property in the UK - but you do need one to work.
The inference above was you could tell how many UK residents had left for the EU from identity number records in other EU states. We apparently have an accurate count of new arrivals, it the number of emigrants we don't accurately know.
I don't know if I have an opinion on her one way or the other, but I think this article is worth considering. I think its a bit rich for her to brand us all as smug. I already knew long before the referendum that summarising the advantages of EU membership in a pub discussion is a tough ask. On the other hand I think she has correctly captured how a large chunk of Leavers think of all Remainers, and why free movement was the big driver for most of them. I assume this is also what Robert Peston's new book explores, and i'm looking forward to receiving my copy tomorrow (gone for the hardback version, so effective has been his marketing of it).
I think she makes an important point that we will never shift opinion if the best argument we can make for Remaining is "look at the hassle of leaving, it's not worth it". And I don't know how to argue with people like those on here who mock me for the very act of verifying what I want to assert using Wikipedia or via Google, before posting.
Contrary to @seriously_red 's remarks (Whichever middle class Liberal is the latest to spell out their view of the 2016 referendum is irrelevant!) I think she makes points which are highly relevant. There might be a second referendum. Despite the mounting evidence of the folly, take a look at the CL battle lines. Do you see a Brexit supporting Lifer whom you can see changing sides? I don't. No matter how many facts you throw at them, they remain completely un-moved, even those like @stonemuse who clearly take the time to at least consider an opposing viewpoint.
The problem is the lack of political leadership for the Remain side. What's needed is a movement which recognises:
1. that indeed the lives of ordinary people (and not just in the UK) were made worse as a result of the follies which led to the crash, and have not been made better since, while those that caused it, and supported it, have done just fine, and
2. That Brexit is a massive red herring if the genuine goal is to improve the lives of ordinary people.
Unfortunately Corbyn has always thought the entire EU project is a capitalist plot. So there is no effective opposition to the current charge to the cliffs - although people like Keir Starmer do their best. There has never been a more important time for a Centrist coalition in British politics, but sadly, the British (both the politicians and the people) like it tribal, and I cannot see it happening.
Summarising the benefits of the EU in a pub discussion is a tough ask', you bet it is. Summarising the problems of the EU on the other hand is straightforward. Don't take my word for it but read President Macron's article in the Spectator in which he accurately describes a lot of what is wrong with the EU and why it is failing through lack of democracy and bureaucratic incompetence.
His solution of course is more Europe and a renewed drive to political union,which has only ever been supported by a tiny minority in this country.
So that is why Leavers will not change their minds-the EU is a failing project and the only 'solution' put forward is a European super state. No thanks.
A solution on UK population control = proper sex ed, proper access to contraception, ending poverty on a nationwide scale. Although if you want to believe all that shit about the invading hordes then you're beyond arguing with
I agree about sex-ex. I think we still have the highest percentage of teenage pregnancies in Europe, which is poor show.
As for the invading hordes, I guess you don't believe the annual net migration figures - so you are right, it's not worth arguing over.
As I mentioned before, without knowing how many people leave the UK to settle in the EU (ie net EU emigration) then any debate about whether EU immigration is too high will be skewed by this. There doesn't seem to be a reliable measure for this as the Government do not seem to count who is leaving the country permanently.
Maybe, but the UK makes a record of arrivals/departures at border points - and if you leave and don"t return I guess there is a time period when they count you as gone.
From the other side of the coin, I expect EU countries register a U.K. inhabitant.
In France you register at the Town Hall if you are seeking work/working. In Spain you add yourself to the Padron or register as a resident. Nothing is compulsory but it is hard to stay below the radar for very long unless you are moving around.
In Spain you cannot get electricity/water/ or pay council tax without obtaining a Spanish identity number.
The problem is they are not counted in the same way. EU citizens aren't counted in and out the way you'd like or even think. Airports do border checks but this isn't particularly robust data. Passport checks for those arriving and departing by sea or the tunnel are hit and miss and are not reliable. The Government openly admits that it has lost track of who is coming and going. Immigration figures cannot really be relied upon - they are much more likely to include people here for short stays than those actually permanently settling here.
I agree that visitors from the EU coming in via the ports are almost certainly not accurately counted. However, to be employed in the UK a migrant (EU or otherwise) must register with HMRC and obtain an NI number - irrespective of whether or not they were counted in at a ferry or the tunnel. Those totals will be accurate.
I have a Spanish NIE, equivalent of an NI number, purely because I own a property there. I've never lived or worked there, so identification numbers can't be used as any sort of measure.
Yes I'm familiar with Spanish property conditions but we are talking about UK immigration, not Spanish. You don't need an NI number to buy a property in the UK - but you do need one to work.
The inference above was you could tell how many UK residents had left for the EU from identity number records in other EU states. We apparently have an accurate count of new arrivals, it the number of emigrants we don't accurately know.
Well we had no record whatsoever of immigration for Blair's decade of bloody £20 billion wars, pathetic state housing building and PFI's, so who knows?
I don't know if I have an opinion on her one way or the other, but I think this article is worth considering. I think its a bit rich for her to brand us all as smug. I already knew long before the referendum that summarising the advantages of EU membership in a pub discussion is a tough ask. On the other hand I think she has correctly captured how a large chunk of Leavers think of all Remainers, and why free movement was the big driver for most of them. I assume this is also what Robert Peston's new book explores, and i'm looking forward to receiving my copy tomorrow (gone for the hardback version, so effective has been his marketing of it).
I think she makes an important point that we will never shift opinion if the best argument we can make for Remaining is "look at the hassle of leaving, it's not worth it". And I don't know how to argue with people like those on here who mock me for the very act of verifying what I want to assert using Wikipedia or via Google, before posting.
Contrary to @seriously_red 's remarks (Whichever middle class Liberal is the latest to spell out their view of the 2016 referendum is irrelevant!) I think she makes points which are highly relevant. There might be a second referendum. Despite the mounting evidence of the folly, take a look at the CL battle lines. Do you see a Brexit supporting Lifer whom you can see changing sides? I don't. No matter how many facts you throw at them, they remain completely un-moved, even those like @stonemuse who clearly take the time to at least consider an opposing viewpoint.
The problem is the lack of political leadership for the Remain side. What's needed is a movement which recognises:
1. that indeed the lives of ordinary people (and not just in the UK) were made worse as a result of the follies which led to the crash, and have not been made better since, while those that caused it, and supported it, have done just fine, and
2. That Brexit is a massive red herring if the genuine goal is to improve the lives of ordinary people.
Unfortunately Corbyn has always thought the entire EU project is a capitalist plot. So there is no effective opposition to the current charge to the cliffs - although people like Keir Starmer do their best. There has never been a more important time for a Centrist coalition in British politics, but sadly, the British (both the politicians and the people) like it tribal, and I cannot see it happening.
Summarising the benefits of the EU in a pub discussion is a tough ask', you bet it is. Summarising the problems of the EU on the other hand is straightforward. Don't take my word for it but read President Macron's article in the Spectator in which he accurately describes a lot of what is wrong with the EU and why it is failing through lack of democracy and bureaucratic incompetence.
His solution of course is more Europe and a renewed drive to political union,which has only ever been supported by a tiny minority in this country.
So that is why Leavers will not change their minds-the EU is a failing project and the only 'solution' put forward is a European super state. No thanks.
Whilst I do not agree with it all, Macron made some excellent points in that article.
A solution on UK population control = proper sex ed, proper access to contraception, ending poverty on a nationwide scale. Although if you want to believe all that shit about the invading hordes then you're beyond arguing with
I agree about sex-ex. I think we still have the highest percentage of teenage pregnancies in Europe, which is poor show.
As for the invading hordes, I guess you don't believe the annual net migration figures - so you are right, it's not worth arguing over.
As I mentioned before, without knowing how many people leave the UK to settle in the EU (ie net EU emigration) then any debate about whether EU immigration is too high will be skewed by this. There doesn't seem to be a reliable measure for this as the Government do not seem to count who is leaving the country permanently.
Maybe, but the UK makes a record of arrivals/departures at border points - and if you leave and don"t return I guess there is a time period when they count you as gone.
From the other side of the coin, I expect EU countries register a U.K. inhabitant.
In France you register at the Town Hall if you are seeking work/working. In Spain you add yourself to the Padron or register as a resident. Nothing is compulsory but it is hard to stay below the radar for very long unless you are moving around.
In Spain you cannot get electricity/water/ or pay council tax without obtaining a Spanish identity number.
The problem is they are not counted in the same way. EU citizens aren't counted in and out the way you'd like or even think. Airports do border checks but this isn't particularly robust data. Passport checks for those arriving and departing by sea or the tunnel are hit and miss and are not reliable. The Government openly admits that it has lost track of who is coming and going. Immigration figures cannot really be relied upon - they are much more likely to include people here for short stays than those actually permanently settling here.
I agree that visitors from the EU coming in via the ports are almost certainly not accurately counted. However, to be employed in the UK a migrant (EU or otherwise) must register with HMRC and obtain an NI number - irrespective of whether or not they were counted in at a ferry or the tunnel. Those totals will be accurate.
That's not really a robust record of how many are here, or if they have left.
With regard to the trade thing, Aston Martin say they may have to cease production if there is no deal. An explanation as to why is here. bbc.co.uk/news/business-41983342 The article also goes some way to help understanding just why a trade deal is important.
On this matter, the EU mantra has been consistently that they don't speak on trade until the other matters - not least the number of noughts on the leaving cheque - have been sorted. I assume there's no actual reason for this? Why all outstanding matters cannot be negotiated at the same time is a question that does not seem to have been answered.
I assume this is little more than blackmail? It is a dangerous course of action that we might all live to regret. You'd think maybe they'd remember just how bloody-minded we can be?
With regard to the trade thing, Aston Martin say they may have to cease production if there is no deal. An explanation as to why is here. bbc.co.uk/news/business-41983342 The article also goes some way to help understanding just why a trade deal is important.
On this matter, the EU mantra has been consistently that they don't speak on trade until the other matters - not least the number of noughts on the leaving cheque - have been sorted. I assume there's no actual reason for this? Why all outstanding matters cannot be negotiated at the same time is a question that does not seem to have been answered.
I assume this is little more than blackmail? It is a dangerous course of action that we might all live to regret. You'd think maybe they'd remember just how bloody-minded we can be?
What you mean we might just pick up our ball and go home.......oh wait
I think you will find this series of podcasts from the Centre for European Reform, called "Relaunching the EU" of interest, since the first one in particular addresses head on the question of a multi-speed EU. The longest is 15 mins
It is worth paying attention to these guys for several reasons, not least that they are a multinational team based in Brussels. The narrative that the EU is dominated by Juncker and his personal visions is one largely generated by the anti-EU British press. These guys are in contact with influential players from all 27 countries. Their visions certainly dilute and restrain those who might argue for more integration at a pace dictated by the EU ultras.
The tragedy, as I have said many times, is that the more reasonable and pragmatic people in the EU are precisely those who most appreciated their more thoughtful and constructive British counterparts, such as Charles Grant of the CER. They always hoped that the whole Brexit nonsense could pass, and they could then team up with their British colleagues for a more pragmatic and realistic reform programme. it would never have been "trade only" as you currently seek, but it almost certainly would have been multi-speed, for reasons Charles Grant outlines. I think that indeed is what will happen, but not because of Brexit. That isa typical self-centred Brit take, as usually ignoring all kinds of other reasons. The difference is only that Brexit holds up that constructive process, wastes political energy, and has a negative effect on the economies of all concerned.
I’m still around but too busy to get involved at the moment.
Will post soon in more detail.
I admire your tenacity. I don't have the strength any more to resist being sucked into the mire of mutual disrespect this thread has become, and prefer not to post.
That’s a shame mate. I enjoy reading yours and Stonemuse’s post as someone who sits on the remain side of the fence
With regard to the trade thing, Aston Martin say they may have to cease production if there is no deal. An explanation as to why is here. bbc.co.uk/news/business-41983342 The article also goes some way to help understanding just why a trade deal is important.
On this matter, the EU mantra has been consistently that they don't speak on trade until the other matters - not least the number of noughts on the leaving cheque - have been sorted. I assume there's no actual reason for this? Why all outstanding matters cannot be negotiated at the same time is a question that does not seem to have been answered.
I assume this is little more than blackmail? It is a dangerous course of action that we might all live to regret. You'd think maybe they'd remember just how bloody-minded we can be?
This is going to pain some people, but I don't actually think that the amount of any "divorce" settlement is as big a deal as many suggest. It's emotive and easy to flag one side or the other as bullies and/or duplicitous. But, IMHO, you will probably find that both sides in the negotiation are probably not that far apart in relation to the methodology (which will then determine the amount), the difficulty is exposing the amount to the public gaze (less than the EU might like, but more than the UK does).
The more I think about it, however, the more I think that the outline border settlement in Ireland will be the make or break option in the talks. The nature of any outline practical solutions put forward by the UK, at this stage, will determine what kind of trade deal, if any, is capable of negotiation. It is quite obvious that what has been put forward to date is, for the EU, unacceptable for an external border of the Single Market.
If nothing can be agreed in principle for Ireland, it follows that the same can be expected for all EU-UK borders.
Journalism like that is an absolute disgrace. These MP’s are using their experience and judgement to make a decision that they feel is best for their country. The front page stops short of having them called traitors or the enemy of the people but that is the clear implication. It’s interesting that the picture of Kenneth Clarke is small and as innocuously positioned as his is. Why ? Because he with his years of high office it might just show credibility.
There are of course a group of hard Brexit Tory MP’s with whom I 100% disagree but I wouldn’t have them put up in this way and portrayed as traitors and the enemy. Wrong and misguided certainly but not bullied and vilified by what should be a responsible press.
Comments
My knowledge on this limited part of exporting/importing procedures is based upon my many years as International Datapost Manager for Parcelforce. I used to advise other postal administrations on best practice for customs clearance.
So far as the rest of your posting is concerned, I have no expertise on the subject matter and thank you for the advice/knowledge.
From the other side of the coin, I expect EU countries register a U.K. inhabitant.
In France you register at the Town Hall if you are seeking work/working.
In Spain you add yourself to the Padron or register as a resident.
Nothing is compulsory but it is hard to stay below the radar for very long unless you are moving around.
In Spain you cannot get electricity/water/ or pay council tax without obtaining a Spanish identity number.
The interesting thing will be the increase in volume of parcels that will be subject to customs clearance (with parcels from the EU being treated in the same way as those from the US).
Of course, I'm sure every ebay retailer, for example, will be absolutely honest in their description of the contents and value of any parcels they send.
If I understand the concept correctly.
I believe in practical terms a multi speed Europe may be cumbersome, even more if individual countries have a pick and mix approach, but it still might be a good idea if it is understandable.
I am cautious that it might be a structure that would have loads of loopholes that can be exploited in some way, and as it seems so complex...well, as my old Dad used to say 'if it ain't there, it can't go wrong'.
Overall it looks like something that will require rules, and a multi national court with the possibility of sanctions in order to enforce them.
Please go to Favourite Aria's for some culture!
The Government's information suggests that the current process for parcels from outside the EU (which, without being in the Customs Union/Single Market, would be the regime established for EU parcels) means that all parcels requiring payment of duty must be retained by the courier. From personal experience, it is not a "little delay". https://gov.uk/goods-sent-from-abroad/tax-and-duty
In general, regarding trade, the issue with the border between the UK and the EU is that goods are now freely moved between member states (the frictionless border so beloved of T May)(https://gov.uk/guidance/transit-and-other-suspensive-regimes). This can include goods imported from outside the EU, under the Union Transit and Common Transit systems, that allow for relatively unhindered movement of goods within the EU, EFTA, Turkey (for industrial and processed agricultural products only), Macedonia and Serbia (the duties, etc., on non-EU products being suspended until they reach their final destination). Where duty payments have already been made, goods imported from outside the EU can circulate freely (because of the common external tariffs).
The way that the EU describes the operation of the Customs Union is very clear and, I would argue, informative - https://europa.eu/european-union/topics/customs_en (in the pdf). As it points out: In 1993, customs controls at internal borders were abolished and long queues of commercial vehicles at border crossings are now a distant memory
Unless the UK remains in the Single Market/Customs Union, or negotiates some kind of special status (which I believe was something that the Government is keen to investigate, but I fear it is unlikely to gain any real traction in the EU), this will change.
The issue at the borders will not just be the value of goods being transported (though even families on cross-border shopping trips could find that they are importing more than they are allowed), but the wider range of product safety, food health (my favourite thing, sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures), place of origin, etc.
It would be reasonable to assume that every commercial vehicle will be obliged to be accompanied by suitable documentation (which will have to be checked, at least periodically), with the best will in the world, when officials talk about 30 seconds to clear a load, that is a reference only to the time taken to scan and process the forms, not the amount of time that a lorry will be stopped while clearing customs. Even minimal checking of manifests would start to create backlogs on roads and motorways. Delays at ports for commercial traffic will have knock-on effects on other travellers, etc.
The Government is talking about use of technology, trusted importers and the like (but even they will have to subject to occasional physical compliance checks), who would not be required, in the main, to clear customs at the port or an inland customs hub; though it is the same UK Government that is being fined for failing to adequately screen Chinese imports (so some will take their assertions with a pinch of salt). The experience of the Norway/Sweden border would suggest that the numbers of vehicles requiring checks, and the infrastructure needed, will be higher than politicans would suggest (because a much larger volume of imports will be covered).
In Ireland, there are no customs controls on the land border, vehicles do not even slow down to cross from one jurisdiction to the other. Brexit will require both parties to put in place sufficient infrastructure to manage the cross-border trade. Should the UK and US agree a trade deal, as Wilbur Ross has outlined last week, the need to inspect both the paperwork and the cargo of much of the commercial traffic entering the Republic will be dramatically increased. Some might say this is the EU/Republic's problem, and it will be one additional concern for them, but it will have a damaging impact on Northern Irish agribusiness. In any event, the reintroduction of customs controls would lead to an immediate and very visible change to the current situation (a change that would be mirrored at Dover and other ports).
If, like me, you believe that no trade deal will be agreed, the UK will be subject to WTO rules (assuming schedules can be agreed). In this case, the UK Government will have to implement border controls/tariffs, or else allow all other WTO members unfettered (frictionless even) access to the UK market. And WTO tariffs would also be very damaging for agribusiness in particular, as the tariffs on processed foodstuffs are higher.
There is one thing quoting governments advice and one knowing the actual reality. The reality is that most parcels arriving via say DHL and from outside of the EU (and those within) do not go anywhere need a customs building. The exception being those few which are selected by the customs interface system for physical examination. Parcels upon which duty needs to be paid are cleared as soon as the courier company (DHL) receives payment from the clearance agent working on behalf of the consignee. This can be less than one hour. Parcelforce being a quasi government organisation (part of the Civil Service until 1969?) has a different system.
My knowledge on this limited part of exporting/importing procedures is based upon my many years as International Datapost Manager for Parcelforce. I used to advise other postal administrations on best practice for customs clearance.
So far as the rest of your posting is concerned, I have no expertise on the subject matter and thank you for the advice/knowledge.
In fairness, my experience was generally DHL (delivery driver, many moons ago) and Parcelforce. I'd be inclined to suggest that, in general, they will have different types of customer.
The interesting thing will be the increase in volume of parcels that will be subject to customs clearance (with parcels from the EU being treated in the same way as those from the US).
Of course, I'm sure every ebay retailer, for example, will be absolutely honest in their description of the contents and value of any parcels they send.
Agreed. DHL traffic would primarily be from regular business customers, whereas Parcelforce would have a greater percentage of casual business customers and/or social parcels.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/14/sex-slang-steak-views-leave-remain-worlds-apart
They prefer well done steak.
His solution of course is more Europe and a renewed drive to political union,which has only ever been supported by a tiny minority in this country.
So that is why Leavers will not change their minds-the EU is a failing project and the only 'solution' put forward is a European super state. No thanks.
The article also goes some way to help understanding just why a trade deal is important.
On this matter, the EU mantra has been consistently that they don't speak on trade until the other matters - not least the number of noughts on the leaving cheque - have been sorted. I assume there's no actual reason for this? Why all outstanding matters cannot be negotiated at the same time is a question that does not seem to have been answered.
I assume this is little more than blackmail? It is a dangerous course of action that we might all live to regret. You'd think maybe they'd remember just how bloody-minded we can be?
Very good post.
I think you will find this series of podcasts from the Centre for European Reform, called "Relaunching the EU" of interest, since the first one in particular addresses head on the question of a multi-speed EU. The longest is 15 mins
It is worth paying attention to these guys for several reasons, not least that they are a multinational team based in Brussels. The narrative that the EU is dominated by Juncker and his personal visions is one largely generated by the anti-EU British press. These guys are in contact with influential players from all 27 countries. Their visions certainly dilute and restrain those who might argue for more integration at a pace dictated by the EU ultras.
The tragedy, as I have said many times, is that the more reasonable and pragmatic people in the EU are precisely those who most appreciated their more thoughtful and constructive British counterparts, such as Charles Grant of the CER. They always hoped that the whole Brexit nonsense could pass, and they could then team up with their British colleagues for a more pragmatic and realistic reform programme. it would never have been "trade only" as you currently seek, but it almost certainly would have been multi-speed, for reasons Charles Grant outlines. I think that indeed is what will happen, but not because of Brexit. That isa typical self-centred Brit take, as usually ignoring all kinds of other reasons. The difference is only that Brexit holds up that constructive process, wastes political energy, and has a negative effect on the economies of all concerned.
The more I think about it, however, the more I think that the outline border settlement in Ireland will be the make or break option in the talks. The nature of any outline practical solutions put forward by the UK, at this stage, will determine what kind of trade deal, if any, is capable of negotiation. It is quite obvious that what has been put forward to date is, for the EU, unacceptable for an external border of the Single Market.
If nothing can be agreed in principle for Ireland, it follows that the same can be expected for all EU-UK borders.
There are of course a group of hard Brexit Tory MP’s with whom I 100% disagree but I wouldn’t have them put up in this way and portrayed as traitors and the enemy. Wrong and misguided certainly but not bullied and vilified by what should be a responsible press.