Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
The Countdown begins. 23:28 - Nov 10 with 331912 viewspikeypaul



https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20190329T23&p0=1336&msg=Democr

1:19 pm today was the exact mid point from when the result that the Great British public had decided to leave the EU and the time 11pm March 29th 2019 that Democracy will be delivered.

Happy days.
[Post edited 25 Jun 17:01]

🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
Poll: Next major war involving UK against a super power ?

0
The Countdown begins. on 22:44 - Aug 12 with 1315 viewslonglostjack

The Countdown begins. on 20:51 - Aug 12 by Kerouac

Me too.

Have been calling for the abolition of the Lords for at least 20 years now...and Proportional Representation.
The current establishment stitch up is designed to deny change.


Rees Mogg, Boris, Lawson, Lord Rothermere et al, are the establishment.
[Post edited 12 Aug 22:47]

Poll: Have our US owners improved Swansea City Football Club?

1
The Countdown begins. on 23:58 - Aug 12 with 1287 viewsHighjack

The Countdown begins. on 20:51 - Aug 12 by Kerouac

Me too.

Have been calling for the abolition of the Lords for at least 20 years now...and Proportional Representation.
The current establishment stitch up is designed to deny change.


We have these things called general elections periodically.

Every one up to and including 2017 returned a majority of MPs and parties committed to the First past the post.

Parties opposed to first past the post generally got no seats.

A significant number of Welsh MPs are still very much pro First past the post

Therefore we should never change it.
[Post edited 13 Aug 0:08]

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Poll: After dumping Leanne, who is Trampie’s latest crush?

0
The Countdown begins. on 07:48 - Aug 13 with 1246 viewsKilkennyjack

The Countdown begins. on 23:58 - Aug 12 by Highjack

We have these things called general elections periodically.

Every one up to and including 2017 returned a majority of MPs and parties committed to the First past the post.

Parties opposed to first past the post generally got no seats.

A significant number of Welsh MPs are still very much pro First past the post

Therefore we should never change it.
[Post edited 13 Aug 0:08]


Are you pleased with ....

Dumping nuclear mud from England on the welsh coast ?
Super prisons - holding mostly english prisoners - being built in wales ?
Cancellation of the promised tidal lagoon ?
Cancellation of the rail electrification to Swansea ?
Swans being relegated ?

London rule has failed Wales. Its over.

Mogg, Boris, Farage, May and all the other English nationalists will never take the needs of Wales seriously.

Feck their Tory Brexit.

‘Beware of the risen people’ ........🍀🇮🇪 💚 YesCymru 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

0
The Countdown begins. on 09:41 - Aug 13 with 1223 viewsHighjack

The Countdown begins. on 07:48 - Aug 13 by Kilkennyjack

Are you pleased with ....

Dumping nuclear mud from England on the welsh coast ?
Super prisons - holding mostly english prisoners - being built in wales ?
Cancellation of the promised tidal lagoon ?
Cancellation of the rail electrification to Swansea ?
Swans being relegated ?

London rule has failed Wales. Its over.

Mogg, Boris, Farage, May and all the other English nationalists will never take the needs of Wales seriously.

Feck their Tory Brexit.


Nuclear mud? Have no idea what you’re on about

Super prisons - no problem with that. Naughty people need to be held somewhere.

Tidal lagoon - do we really want a beautiful bay turned into a giant industrial eyesore?

Rail - I never use the train so don’t know much about it.

Swans being relegated - are the English being blamed for that as well now?

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Poll: After dumping Leanne, who is Trampie’s latest crush?

-1

The Countdown begins. on 10:19 - Aug 13 with 1199 viewspikeypaul

228 AFLI

SIUYRL

🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
Poll: Next major war involving UK against a super power ?

0
The Countdown begins. on 17:14 - Aug 13 with 1147 viewsKerouac

The Countdown begins. on 07:44 - Jul 30 by Shaky

There's an old saying: "What's good for GM (General Motors) is Good for America"

So when GM issued a profits warning last Friday, due to the negative impact of steel and aluminium prices on costs, the writing was on the wall for Trump's idiotic tariffs.

Happily this coincided precisely with the Washington visit of Juncker, who was able to make some vague promises of further talks and Trump backed down.
[Post edited 30 Jul 7:47]


Hey Shakes,
How are these US tariffs working out?
I suppose the EU is still in the driving seat, I'm expecting the Commish to f*ck the US economy right up...any day now.

Poll: Who would you most like to see banned?

0
The Countdown begins. on 18:03 - Aug 13 with 1139 viewsjohnlangy

The Countdown begins. on 09:41 - Aug 13 by Highjack

Nuclear mud? Have no idea what you’re on about

Super prisons - no problem with that. Naughty people need to be held somewhere.

Tidal lagoon - do we really want a beautiful bay turned into a giant industrial eyesore?

Rail - I never use the train so don’t know much about it.

Swans being relegated - are the English being blamed for that as well now?


Hinckley Point mud to be dumped outside Cardiff.

Isn't it strange that the Tory Government is happy to invest in Wales when it comes to something that English people don't want. I imagine there were many potential sites in England as well as Port Talbot (possible other South Wales sites as well) but all the English ones are suddenly passed up and PT becomes the preferred site.

Wales already has a surfeit of prison places. Most of the prisoners in the Wrexham Super Prison, as far as i'm aware, are English. And most of the ones who would be housed in PT will be mostly English.

Doesn't the argument go that prisoners should, preferrably, be accommodated near to where their families are.

So build the bloody thing in England.
1
The Countdown begins. on 22:08 - Aug 13 with 1100 viewsHighjack

The Countdown begins. on 18:03 - Aug 13 by johnlangy

Hinckley Point mud to be dumped outside Cardiff.

Isn't it strange that the Tory Government is happy to invest in Wales when it comes to something that English people don't want. I imagine there were many potential sites in England as well as Port Talbot (possible other South Wales sites as well) but all the English ones are suddenly passed up and PT becomes the preferred site.

Wales already has a surfeit of prison places. Most of the prisoners in the Wrexham Super Prison, as far as i'm aware, are English. And most of the ones who would be housed in PT will be mostly English.

Doesn't the argument go that prisoners should, preferrably, be accommodated near to where their families are.

So build the bloody thing in England.


I’ve only looked at the mud thing briefly. It seems like edf have been granted the license to do it by the welsh assembly so this is one of the decisions made in wales by welsh people thing.

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Poll: After dumping Leanne, who is Trampie’s latest crush?

1
Login to get fewer ads

The Countdown begins. on 22:22 - Aug 13 with 1093 viewsHighjack

The Countdown begins. on 18:03 - Aug 13 by johnlangy

Hinckley Point mud to be dumped outside Cardiff.

Isn't it strange that the Tory Government is happy to invest in Wales when it comes to something that English people don't want. I imagine there were many potential sites in England as well as Port Talbot (possible other South Wales sites as well) but all the English ones are suddenly passed up and PT becomes the preferred site.

Wales already has a surfeit of prison places. Most of the prisoners in the Wrexham Super Prison, as far as i'm aware, are English. And most of the ones who would be housed in PT will be mostly English.

Doesn't the argument go that prisoners should, preferrably, be accommodated near to where their families are.

So build the bloody thing in England.


Wrexham could realistically be housing lots of scouser scumbags so they’ll still be near their family.

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Poll: After dumping Leanne, who is Trampie’s latest crush?

1
The Countdown begins. on 22:51 - Aug 13 with 1083 viewsHighjack

The Countdown begins. on 22:22 - Aug 13 by Highjack

Wrexham could realistically be housing lots of scouser scumbags so they’ll still be near their family.


In fact Wrexham is within half an hour of both Liverpool and Manchester so judging prisoners by postcodes is a bit disingenuous considering there’s a hell of a lot more crime there than in Rhyl.

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Poll: After dumping Leanne, who is Trampie’s latest crush?

0

The Countdown begins. on 23:42 - Aug 13 with 1069 viewsKerouac

NO DEAL: TRADE AND REGULATIONS by Jamie Arnell




(Jamie Arnell, a partner at Charterhouse, writing in a personal capacity, advocates a low tariff regime, but one that maintains pressure on EU countries to agree a free-trade agreement. He makes two suggestions for the Irish border.)


A Proposed Tariff Regime

If we cannot secure an acceptable free trade agreement with the EU before 2019, most observers have suggested that we move to a WTO tariff regime. Successive negotiations and bilateral arrangements between states have reduced the impact of tariffs, which is why there are very substantial trade flows between markets even without free trade agreements. The WTO tariff regime effectively amounts to an “almost free trade agreement” between all the signatories.

The WTO tariff regime has 99 chapters, covering goods of all descriptions. Within each chapter, there are sub-categories of goods down to a very specific level, and each one has its own tariff, and some also have allowances for importation of certain quantities on a reduced or tariff-free basis. The basic principle is that, in the absence of a comprehensive FTA which trumps the WTO tariffs (such as the EU Single Market), then any reduction in tariffs by a signatory state needs to be extended to everyone. We can’t “pick on” the EU.

Tariffs, even at a low level, are a frictional cost of trade and are therefore bad for trade. Agreeing FTAs with as many states as possible will be an urgent priority for the UK after Brexit, but it will take time. In the meantime, we will have to consider what tariff regime we want to follow.

In determining this, I would propose the following as the key considerations:

1) We should reduce tariffs as much as possible, while maintaining leverage over trade partners to bring them to the table for wider FTA discussions. This has many benefits:
Reduces costs to our importers;
Reduces costs for our consumers;
Increases the UK’s importance as a trading partner to the rest of the world;
Reduces the complexity of management of the tariff system for our customs officers.

2) Specifically with regard to the EU, we should retain tariffs in those sectors which cause significant pressure on individual EU states, in order to encourage the EU to agree a FTA with the UK in due course.

3) We should reduce tariffs on intermediate goods and raw materials, while maintaining tariffs on some finished goods. This will stimulate growth in higher value-added sectors of the UK economy. By way of example, we could reduce the tariffs on components for cars to zero, while maintaining the tariffs on finished vehicles.

I would propose that we radically overhaul our import tariff regime to coincide with Brexit in 2019.
I propose that the UK suspends tariffs on many WTO chapters, and charges tariffs on imports on just 23 of the 99 chapters. If at all possible, it should reserve the possibility to increase tariffs back to the WTO level in other chapters, should there be unexpected economic impact.

These 23 chapters account for £154 billion of imports from the EU and £149 billion of imports from outside the EU, i.e. 65 per cent and 64 per cent of imports respectively. £83 billion of non-EU imports would become zero-tariff imports. The net addition of tariffed imports as a result of the introduction of the proposed new tariff regime would therefore be £71 billion, an increase of 30 per cent over current tariffed imports. This uplift should make the transition much easier for our customs system to manage.
The UK would ‘lose’ tariff income (as compared to a standard WTO tariff deployment) of £2.8 billion on EU imports and £2.3 billion on non-EU imports. This would reduce frictional costs of trade (as compared to a standard WTO tariff deployment) by £5.1 billion. This benefit would be felt by UK importers and consumers (although care would need to be taken to monitor the effect on local producers).

Further refinements to the tariff regime should be considered for electrical goods and machinery. In these areas, there are substantial flows and it may be advantageous to reduce tariffs to zero on parts and components, while maintaining tariffs on finished products. I have taken this assumption for automotive, but data is opaque for other sectors. The Government has all the figures, but they are not easy to find in consistent formats. This should be a core focus for Dexeu’s team in the very short term, so that changes to the tariff system can be very precisely and intelligently targeted.


Customs arrangements, including proposals for the Northern Irish border

Our responsibility is to control our imports. In a no-deal scenario we will no longer be responsible for collecting the EU’s external tariff. That responsibility will lie with the EU. It is therefore for the EU to inform us as to how they propose to implement the external tariff on goods coming into the EU from the UK. This is not however the proposal on the July White Paper

The Prime Minister has said on her visit to Northern Ireland on 20th July that this approach – that it’s their problem – is not a suitable position for a responsible country to take. I address what I think we should offer below, but I cannot resist stating my opinion in passing, no doubt shared by many, that the Northern Ireland border has been the “tail that wags the dog” in May’s Chequers deal. The refusal to confront the hard choice – a tech-enabled border with the Republic, or a customs border at the Irish Sea – has led to the ridiculous situation in which she ties the UK to EU regulation of goods into perpetuity, with no input to that regulation. There is no way to diverge without an Irish customs border. May has declared that neither form is possible. It follows that we can never diverge, which means no really effective bilateral trade deals in goods with any countries outside the EU. It is farcical.

I see two options to escape from this conundrum, both of which are so obvious that May’s refusal to entertain them convinces me that she has used the Irish border issue as cover for her desire to implement a very soft Brexit. The two options are:

- Use a technology border as proposed by Boris Johnson and many others. I refer her to the border around London (which controls the congestion charge) as an illustration.

- Buy off the DUP, and put the border at the Irish Sea. This would, in my view, have significant economic benefits for Northern Ireland and any financial drag could be easily compensated by additional transfers from Westminster.
The Irish situation is already unusual. We have the Common Travel Area, and we have an integrated energy system. Having the anomaly of a customs border at the Irish Sea is simply a reflection of the fact that Ireland has our only land border with the EU. No more, no less. There is no need to conflate issues of long-term sovereignty with issues of administrative convenience. The DUP will no doubt demand other assurances from the UK as to their long term future in the Union, and the government should give them. These might include the relocation of major UK government facilities, and so on. We can afford to be generous, as the current impasse risks costing us a fortune in lost trade deal opportunities. To be clear, I prefer option 1.



Divorce Settlement

Our divorce payment to the EU should be made subject to satisfactory arrangements being set up for customs borders, and then implemented fairly. We should expect our EU partners to seek to put pressure on us by delaying import clearances and we should plan for that. Two ideas for linking the divorce bill to satisfactory outcomes are the following:

In a no deal scenario, an escrow of the £12 billion we might be argued to actually owe, to be held back as a security against unfair practices by EU states (e.g. deliberately obstructing export flows);

In a deal scenario, where, as is likely, we have a firm transition deal, but only an in-principle deal on the long term arrangements, I suggest that the £37 billion “divorce bill” is paid as a loan, repayable by the EU if there is no deal signed by the end of the transition period.

Two urgent priorities spring to mind, beyond attaching a condition to our divorce settlement:

a) Companies may need to build local stocks in the EU to ensure that they can continue to supply their customers as the new arrangements bed in. The UK Government should create a dedicated stock financing fund to allow UK companies to build those stocks ahead of Brexit and move them into the EU;

b) As we have heard repeatedly, there will need to be an expansion of capacity for the export infrastructure of the UK to allow for customs checks on outbound traffic if that is part of the agreement with the EU. We should offer to fund this and to administer this as much as possible, as it will free us from the threat of deliberate obstruction of export flows.

As for imports, the tariff regime proposed above will lead to a net 30 per cent increase in goods entering the UK being subject to tariffs. This should be manageable, but it will require the hiring of more customs officials and it may also require additional physical capacity.

Should the conclusion be reached that this cannot be put in place before March 2019, then the consequence should not be that we increase the size of the cheque we offer to the EU. We should instead explore the option of simply suspending tariffs or increasing quotas on a wider basis for a period, to reduce customs load while we build additional capacity. Tariffs could be raised or quotas reduced as and when the capability is in place, provided that the same treatment is applied equally to all WTO signatories.

Finally, what to do on the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland or between Northern Ireland and the mainland UK?

Once again, the external tariff is an issue for the EU. It is their job to manage flows from the UK into the EU. That is not our problem.

Our problem is therefore simply: how do we check on and charge tariffs on goods coming over the border from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland? My proposal would be that we create an obligation on the part of companies and individuals to declare such flows and to pay the required tariff online, with any failure to do so punishable by up to 5 years in prison, with those sentences applicable to company directors if the rules are broken.

Spot checks of vehicles whose number plates have been identified as having recently crossed the border should be authorised by legislation, and anyone carrying goods over the border should be obliged to carry a receipt from the online tariff payment system.
The Government has proposed an even more flexible in its position paper, proposing to exempt smaller businesses from duties and other formalities and focusing on compliance visits to larger companies at their premises. I am not convinced that this will suffice, and I am not sure that WTO rules would allow tariff-free access for those smaller companies without extending that to other nations.

Either solution assumes that the UK will in any event unilaterally recognise EU regulations for goods and agriculture, so no additional border formalities will be required to enforce compliance with product standards. This will reduce workload very substantially at the UK / mainland Europe border as well, of course.

Poll: Who would you most like to see banned?

0

The Countdown begins. on 08:45 - Aug 14 with 1020 viewspikeypaul

227 AFLI

Another glorious day closer to the great day

Suck it up you remoaner losers.

🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
Poll: Next major war involving UK against a super power ?

0
The Countdown begins. on 09:29 - Aug 14 with 1009 viewsWarwickHunt

The Countdown begins. on 23:42 - Aug 13 by Kerouac

NO DEAL: TRADE AND REGULATIONS by Jamie Arnell




(Jamie Arnell, a partner at Charterhouse, writing in a personal capacity, advocates a low tariff regime, but one that maintains pressure on EU countries to agree a free-trade agreement. He makes two suggestions for the Irish border.)


A Proposed Tariff Regime

If we cannot secure an acceptable free trade agreement with the EU before 2019, most observers have suggested that we move to a WTO tariff regime. Successive negotiations and bilateral arrangements between states have reduced the impact of tariffs, which is why there are very substantial trade flows between markets even without free trade agreements. The WTO tariff regime effectively amounts to an “almost free trade agreement” between all the signatories.

The WTO tariff regime has 99 chapters, covering goods of all descriptions. Within each chapter, there are sub-categories of goods down to a very specific level, and each one has its own tariff, and some also have allowances for importation of certain quantities on a reduced or tariff-free basis. The basic principle is that, in the absence of a comprehensive FTA which trumps the WTO tariffs (such as the EU Single Market), then any reduction in tariffs by a signatory state needs to be extended to everyone. We can’t “pick on” the EU.

Tariffs, even at a low level, are a frictional cost of trade and are therefore bad for trade. Agreeing FTAs with as many states as possible will be an urgent priority for the UK after Brexit, but it will take time. In the meantime, we will have to consider what tariff regime we want to follow.

In determining this, I would propose the following as the key considerations:

1) We should reduce tariffs as much as possible, while maintaining leverage over trade partners to bring them to the table for wider FTA discussions. This has many benefits:
Reduces costs to our importers;
Reduces costs for our consumers;
Increases the UK’s importance as a trading partner to the rest of the world;
Reduces the complexity of management of the tariff system for our customs officers.

2) Specifically with regard to the EU, we should retain tariffs in those sectors which cause significant pressure on individual EU states, in order to encourage the EU to agree a FTA with the UK in due course.

3) We should reduce tariffs on intermediate goods and raw materials, while maintaining tariffs on some finished goods. This will stimulate growth in higher value-added sectors of the UK economy. By way of example, we could reduce the tariffs on components for cars to zero, while maintaining the tariffs on finished vehicles.

I would propose that we radically overhaul our import tariff regime to coincide with Brexit in 2019.
I propose that the UK suspends tariffs on many WTO chapters, and charges tariffs on imports on just 23 of the 99 chapters. If at all possible, it should reserve the possibility to increase tariffs back to the WTO level in other chapters, should there be unexpected economic impact.

These 23 chapters account for £154 billion of imports from the EU and £149 billion of imports from outside the EU, i.e. 65 per cent and 64 per cent of imports respectively. £83 billion of non-EU imports would become zero-tariff imports. The net addition of tariffed imports as a result of the introduction of the proposed new tariff regime would therefore be £71 billion, an increase of 30 per cent over current tariffed imports. This uplift should make the transition much easier for our customs system to manage.
The UK would ‘lose’ tariff income (as compared to a standard WTO tariff deployment) of £2.8 billion on EU imports and £2.3 billion on non-EU imports. This would reduce frictional costs of trade (as compared to a standard WTO tariff deployment) by £5.1 billion. This benefit would be felt by UK importers and consumers (although care would need to be taken to monitor the effect on local producers).

Further refinements to the tariff regime should be considered for electrical goods and machinery. In these areas, there are substantial flows and it may be advantageous to reduce tariffs to zero on parts and components, while maintaining tariffs on finished products. I have taken this assumption for automotive, but data is opaque for other sectors. The Government has all the figures, but they are not easy to find in consistent formats. This should be a core focus for Dexeu’s team in the very short term, so that changes to the tariff system can be very precisely and intelligently targeted.


Customs arrangements, including proposals for the Northern Irish border

Our responsibility is to control our imports. In a no-deal scenario we will no longer be responsible for collecting the EU’s external tariff. That responsibility will lie with the EU. It is therefore for the EU to inform us as to how they propose to implement the external tariff on goods coming into the EU from the UK. This is not however the proposal on the July White Paper

The Prime Minister has said on her visit to Northern Ireland on 20th July that this approach – that it’s their problem – is not a suitable position for a responsible country to take. I address what I think we should offer below, but I cannot resist stating my opinion in passing, no doubt shared by many, that the Northern Ireland border has been the “tail that wags the dog” in May’s Chequers deal. The refusal to confront the hard choice – a tech-enabled border with the Republic, or a customs border at the Irish Sea – has led to the ridiculous situation in which she ties the UK to EU regulation of goods into perpetuity, with no input to that regulation. There is no way to diverge without an Irish customs border. May has declared that neither form is possible. It follows that we can never diverge, which means no really effective bilateral trade deals in goods with any countries outside the EU. It is farcical.

I see two options to escape from this conundrum, both of which are so obvious that May’s refusal to entertain them convinces me that she has used the Irish border issue as cover for her desire to implement a very soft Brexit. The two options are:

- Use a technology border as proposed by Boris Johnson and many others. I refer her to the border around London (which controls the congestion charge) as an illustration.

- Buy off the DUP, and put the border at the Irish Sea. This would, in my view, have significant economic benefits for Northern Ireland and any financial drag could be easily compensated by additional transfers from Westminster.
The Irish situation is already unusual. We have the Common Travel Area, and we have an integrated energy system. Having the anomaly of a customs border at the Irish Sea is simply a reflection of the fact that Ireland has our only land border with the EU. No more, no less. There is no need to conflate issues of long-term sovereignty with issues of administrative convenience. The DUP will no doubt demand other assurances from the UK as to their long term future in the Union, and the government should give them. These might include the relocation of major UK government facilities, and so on. We can afford to be generous, as the current impasse risks costing us a fortune in lost trade deal opportunities. To be clear, I prefer option 1.



Divorce Settlement

Our divorce payment to the EU should be made subject to satisfactory arrangements being set up for customs borders, and then implemented fairly. We should expect our EU partners to seek to put pressure on us by delaying import clearances and we should plan for that. Two ideas for linking the divorce bill to satisfactory outcomes are the following:

In a no deal scenario, an escrow of the £12 billion we might be argued to actually owe, to be held back as a security against unfair practices by EU states (e.g. deliberately obstructing export flows);

In a deal scenario, where, as is likely, we have a firm transition deal, but only an in-principle deal on the long term arrangements, I suggest that the £37 billion “divorce bill” is paid as a loan, repayable by the EU if there is no deal signed by the end of the transition period.

Two urgent priorities spring to mind, beyond attaching a condition to our divorce settlement:

a) Companies may need to build local stocks in the EU to ensure that they can continue to supply their customers as the new arrangements bed in. The UK Government should create a dedicated stock financing fund to allow UK companies to build those stocks ahead of Brexit and move them into the EU;

b) As we have heard repeatedly, there will need to be an expansion of capacity for the export infrastructure of the UK to allow for customs checks on outbound traffic if that is part of the agreement with the EU. We should offer to fund this and to administer this as much as possible, as it will free us from the threat of deliberate obstruction of export flows.

As for imports, the tariff regime proposed above will lead to a net 30 per cent increase in goods entering the UK being subject to tariffs. This should be manageable, but it will require the hiring of more customs officials and it may also require additional physical capacity.

Should the conclusion be reached that this cannot be put in place before March 2019, then the consequence should not be that we increase the size of the cheque we offer to the EU. We should instead explore the option of simply suspending tariffs or increasing quotas on a wider basis for a period, to reduce customs load while we build additional capacity. Tariffs could be raised or quotas reduced as and when the capability is in place, provided that the same treatment is applied equally to all WTO signatories.

Finally, what to do on the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland or between Northern Ireland and the mainland UK?

Once again, the external tariff is an issue for the EU. It is their job to manage flows from the UK into the EU. That is not our problem.

Our problem is therefore simply: how do we check on and charge tariffs on goods coming over the border from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland? My proposal would be that we create an obligation on the part of companies and individuals to declare such flows and to pay the required tariff online, with any failure to do so punishable by up to 5 years in prison, with those sentences applicable to company directors if the rules are broken.

Spot checks of vehicles whose number plates have been identified as having recently crossed the border should be authorised by legislation, and anyone carrying goods over the border should be obliged to carry a receipt from the online tariff payment system.
The Government has proposed an even more flexible in its position paper, proposing to exempt smaller businesses from duties and other formalities and focusing on compliance visits to larger companies at their premises. I am not convinced that this will suffice, and I am not sure that WTO rules would allow tariff-free access for those smaller companies without extending that to other nations.

Either solution assumes that the UK will in any event unilaterally recognise EU regulations for goods and agriculture, so no additional border formalities will be required to enforce compliance with product standards. This will reduce workload very substantially at the UK / mainland Europe border as well, of course.


Wibble.
1

The Countdown begins. on 11:18 - Aug 14 with 996 viewstrampie


Continually being banned by Planet Swans for Porthcawl and then being reinstated.
Poll: UK European Union membership referendum poll

0
The Countdown begins. on 21:54 - Aug 14 with 934 viewscwm02

The Countdown begins. on 18:45 - Aug 12 by johnlangy

Mustn't forget of course the entirely unelected House of Lords.

Brexiters moan and groan about the EU not being democratic but I don't hear them calling for the abolition of that place.


I want the House of Lords abolished
[Post edited 14 Aug 21:55]
-1

The Countdown begins. on 22:07 - Aug 14 with 923 viewspikeypaul

If there was a referendum tomorrow to abolish the House of Lords it would be passed easily.

Yes most do want that unelected bunch kicked out also the sooner the better for me.

If I had a date I could start another countdown thread.

227 AFLI 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧

🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
Poll: Next major war involving UK against a super power ?

0
The Countdown begins. on 22:11 - Aug 14 with 920 viewslonglostjack

The Countdown begins. on 21:54 - Aug 14 by cwm02

I want the House of Lords abolished
[Post edited 14 Aug 21:55]


To be replaced by a second chamber elected by proportional representation.

Poll: Have our US owners improved Swansea City Football Club?

2
The Countdown begins. on 17:38 - Aug 15 with 854 viewscwm02

The Countdown begins. on 22:11 - Aug 14 by longlostjack

To be replaced by a second chamber elected by proportional representation.


Or make Britain unicameral and have only the House of Commons. Mixed-member proportional representation (like in NZ) for the House of Commons.
0

The Countdown begins. on 09:29 - Aug 16 with 774 viewspikeypaul

225 AFLI

Suck it up you remoaner losers.

🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
Poll: Next major war involving UK against a super power ?

0
The Countdown begins. on 05:58 - Aug 17 with 719 viewsKilkennyjack

The Countdown begins. on 09:29 - Aug 16 by pikeypaul

225 AFLI

Suck it up you remoaner losers.


https://www.independent.co.uk/final-say/brexit-no-deal-nhs-pandemic-bma-final-sa

Well the good Doctors are calling out Brexit now.
I mean, what do they know about the NHS.

Feck your Tory Brexit.

‘Beware of the risen people’ ........🍀🇮🇪 💚 YesCymru 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

1

The Countdown begins. on 06:48 - Aug 17 with 702 viewsKilkennyjack



Brexidiots have voted for less pay.
Thick as two short planks, fair play.

Mogg, Farage, Gove, Davis, May, and Boris will be ok though.

Feck their Tory Brexit.
[Post edited 17 Aug 8:05]

‘Beware of the risen people’ ........🍀🇮🇪 💚 YesCymru 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

1
The Countdown begins. on 08:15 - Aug 17 with 681 viewsJango

The Countdown begins. on 06:48 - Aug 17 by Kilkennyjack



Brexidiots have voted for less pay.
Thick as two short planks, fair play.

Mogg, Farage, Gove, Davis, May, and Boris will be ok though.

Feck their Tory Brexit.
[Post edited 17 Aug 8:05]


Can you show us 2019 - 2021 figures please? If not then please stop blaming Brexit, it hasn’t happened. Secondly I notice Hungary are way out in front, what’s their views on free movement, immigration and asylum?
0
The Countdown begins. on 08:27 - Aug 17 with 677 viewslonglostjack

The Countdown begins. on 08:15 - Aug 17 by Jango

Can you show us 2019 - 2021 figures please? If not then please stop blaming Brexit, it hasn’t happened. Secondly I notice Hungary are way out in front, what’s their views on free movement, immigration and asylum?


I haven’t heard them complaining about the €4.5bn they receive from the EU each year.

Poll: Have our US owners improved Swansea City Football Club?

0

The Countdown begins. on 08:30 - Aug 17 with 675 viewspikeypaul

32 weeks and fecking loving it.

Another week closer to the great day lads



Happy days.
[Post edited 17 Aug 8:32]

🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
Poll: Next major war involving UK against a super power ?

0
The Countdown begins. on 14:19 - Aug 17 with 631 viewspikeypaul

The Countdown begins. on 08:27 - Aug 17 by longlostjack

I haven’t heard them complaining about the €4.5bn they receive from the EU each year.


A lot of which is pad for by the UK.

224 AFLI

🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
Poll: Next major war involving UK against a super power ?

1
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2018