Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
The Countdown begins. 23:28 - Nov 10 with 235157 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 ?

1
The Countdown begins. on 14:21 - Jul 4 with 577 viewsLeonWasGod

The Countdown begins. on 13:14 - Jul 4 by Jango

Not at all, but skilled British workers shouldn’t be getting undercut and losing work to skilled workers from other countries. British work should be for British people unless there’s a shortage. Please don’t tell me I’m wrong on this subject because it’s something we put up with in my industry on a weekly basis. If you knew as many skilled tradesmen as me that are looking for work while there’s hundreds of Portuguese/polish/Romanians etc doing their work for cheap labour you’d maybe understand.


That may well be the case and I can imagine it's a right kick in the nuts when companies bring in cheap labour ahead of UK workers. Isn't that a bigger issue than the EU though? It happens all over the world, certainly in all the countries I've had projects in. And it certainly won't change post-Brexit. Gove is already encouraging companies to look to the Ukraine and elsewhere for their labour needs.

Again, the EU seems to be taking the buck for a bigger capitalism/globalisation issue.
0
The Countdown begins. on 14:25 - Jul 4 with 572 viewsHighjack

The Countdown begins. on 13:49 - Jul 4 by the_oracle

BBC Wales news today. Shortage of medical and nursing staff across the NHS in Wales. They cannot afford to lose any EU staff. Who is going to replace them or fill these vacancies once free movement is over?


There are a lot of non EU citizens working in the NHS, from Africa, Asia, the americas. EU citizens will have the same rights as these people. Nobody is getting kicked out. Immigration will always happen.

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: What’s your favourite crock?

2

The Countdown begins. on 15:25 - Jul 4 with 542 viewsKerouac

What Have the Remainers Not Understood? By Robin Dunbar



Written by Robin Dunbar

"A major problem with the Remainers’ position seems to be the complete absence of any appreciation of how the EU constitution works and how it came to be the way it is.
Perhaps the most troubling revelation of the post-Brexit debate of the last 18 months has been the extent to which the Remain camp seems to have been desperate to drive us towards a cliff-edge of “No deal” by misleading Brussels into thinking it can play a tough hand. As Yaris Varoufakis discovered at first hand when he had the bad luck to have to negotiate the Greek bailout with Brussels, you can’t negotiate with Brussels – they don’t understand the concept. His advice to Britain after the Brexit vote?  Don’t even bother.  So, in what sense has it been helpful to undermine the UK bargaining hand? The most likely consequence is to force a hard Brexit, because Brussels assumes that the UK will be grateful for whatever crumbs from the table are convenient for Brussels. The majority of the voting public will not accept that, and we and Brussels had better get our minds around the consequences.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is the illusion created by a 51.5% vs 48.5% split in the June 2016 Referendum. Indeed, I have heard claims that the criterion should have been a 60:40 split. But since when has there ever been a 60:40 split in any election in a democratic country? Only Mr Putin, that well-known paragon of democracy, expects votes with better than this kind of split. In genuine democracies, governments are typically elected with around 30-40% of the popular vote – which is why most European countries with proportional representation have coalition governments. A 51.5% vs 48.5% split actually represents a significant majority in favour of Brexit. Indeed, Remainers seem not to appreciate that had we applied a more conventional “first-past-the-post” arrangement, the majority in favour of Brexit would have been overwhelming. Nine voting regions voted to leave (by an average of 56%) against just three that voted to remain (by an average of 59%); on a constituency (i.e. voting area) basis, the Leaves would have had it by a margin of 2:1 on a conventional first past the post basis[1].
The second problem with the Remainers’ position seems to be the complete absence of any appreciation of how the EU constitution works and how it came to be the way it is. Much of the influence on the current constitution of the EU came from Giscard d’Estaing. Who?  Well, that’s my point. For those too young to know, he was the French President between 1974 and 1981, when he was defeated by the socialist candidate François Mitterrand. After relinquishing the French Presidency, Giscard d’Estaing threw himself into the politics of Europe, and – as President of the Convention on the Future of Europe, the body behind the Lisbon Treaty – was heavily involved in the development of its current structures. To understand his position, and hence the effect he had on the current structures, one needs to understand the structure of the modern French state and its origins.
In a very perceptive analysis of European political and social structures, the social scientists Andy Green and Jan Germen Janmaat[2] point out that, while most of northern Europe has a relatively democratic, in many cases federalist, structure that allows considerable independence in the peripheries, France’s political structure owes it origins directly to the French Revolution of 1789. As the revolutionaries gained the ascendency and took over the reins of government, they became acutely aware of the possibility of a counter-revolution from the provinces. The revolution itself had been largely a Paris-based affair; out in the countryside and the more distant provinces, the nobility had survived with both their heads and their estates very much intact. The fear was that the provincial nobility remained a potential pool of counter-revolution that could easily overturn the fragile Revolution.
The revolutionaries’ solution was to devise a highly centralised administration that sought to impose Parisian views on the provinces. Ironically, it built on the structures of the Ancien Régime that had preceded it. Two decades later, this was formalised by Napoleon Bonaparte when he became Emperor (and dictator), the main motivation behind his Code Civil of 1804 being to destroy the economic power of the provincial nobility once and for all. It hardly needs rocket science to recognise this as the model for the political and administrative structures of the EU, with its centralised, dictatorial bureaucracy based in Brussels.
There is something else we would do well to remember. French law, unlike the legal system that prevails in England and most of northern Europe (but not Scotland), is based on Roman law. The difference lies in the source of legal authority. In Anglo-Saxon law, that authority is essentially precedence: some previous legal authority (a judge or a jury) has decided that a particular view is reasonable. French law, with its basis in Roman Law, gives that authority to principle. The difference is that, while Anglo-Saxon Law can bend with the wind, French Law cannot – it is stuck with whatever principles have been enacted in the constitution and formal principles of what is right and wrong. That may be one reason why we don’t have a formal constitution: our constitution is written in the commonsense of the common man and is enshrined in the jury system. Juries can come to idiosyncratic decisions when they think the state is trying to pull a fast one over the common man, and those decisions cannot be questioned – even by m’lud.
So, it is that we end up in a battle of intransigent titans: on one side, an attempt to create some kind of commonsense compromise in the best interests of all and, on the other side, a degree of legalistic inflexibility that is so rigid that it is prepared to sacrifice the security and safety of its own citizens in the interests of maintaining legal niceties. What makes the situation so Kafka-esque is Brussels’ recent declaration that it is prepared to forego any arrangements over intelligence exchange despite the fact that the rest of Europe has no intelligence or security system worth speaking of, aside from that provided by the “Five Eyes” (the post-War collaboration between the five Anglo-Saxon countries: Britain, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). Really? The mind boggles. If that’s how cavalier Europe is with the safety of its citizens, I’m glad I don’t live in Europe."

Poll: Who would you most like to see banned?

2
The Countdown begins. on 15:43 - Jul 4 with 521 viewsHighjack

The Countdown begins. on 15:25 - Jul 4 by Kerouac

What Have the Remainers Not Understood? By Robin Dunbar



Written by Robin Dunbar

"A major problem with the Remainers’ position seems to be the complete absence of any appreciation of how the EU constitution works and how it came to be the way it is.
Perhaps the most troubling revelation of the post-Brexit debate of the last 18 months has been the extent to which the Remain camp seems to have been desperate to drive us towards a cliff-edge of “No deal” by misleading Brussels into thinking it can play a tough hand. As Yaris Varoufakis discovered at first hand when he had the bad luck to have to negotiate the Greek bailout with Brussels, you can’t negotiate with Brussels – they don’t understand the concept. His advice to Britain after the Brexit vote?  Don’t even bother.  So, in what sense has it been helpful to undermine the UK bargaining hand? The most likely consequence is to force a hard Brexit, because Brussels assumes that the UK will be grateful for whatever crumbs from the table are convenient for Brussels. The majority of the voting public will not accept that, and we and Brussels had better get our minds around the consequences.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is the illusion created by a 51.5% vs 48.5% split in the June 2016 Referendum. Indeed, I have heard claims that the criterion should have been a 60:40 split. But since when has there ever been a 60:40 split in any election in a democratic country? Only Mr Putin, that well-known paragon of democracy, expects votes with better than this kind of split. In genuine democracies, governments are typically elected with around 30-40% of the popular vote – which is why most European countries with proportional representation have coalition governments. A 51.5% vs 48.5% split actually represents a significant majority in favour of Brexit. Indeed, Remainers seem not to appreciate that had we applied a more conventional “first-past-the-post” arrangement, the majority in favour of Brexit would have been overwhelming. Nine voting regions voted to leave (by an average of 56%) against just three that voted to remain (by an average of 59%); on a constituency (i.e. voting area) basis, the Leaves would have had it by a margin of 2:1 on a conventional first past the post basis[1].
The second problem with the Remainers’ position seems to be the complete absence of any appreciation of how the EU constitution works and how it came to be the way it is. Much of the influence on the current constitution of the EU came from Giscard d’Estaing. Who?  Well, that’s my point. For those too young to know, he was the French President between 1974 and 1981, when he was defeated by the socialist candidate François Mitterrand. After relinquishing the French Presidency, Giscard d’Estaing threw himself into the politics of Europe, and – as President of the Convention on the Future of Europe, the body behind the Lisbon Treaty – was heavily involved in the development of its current structures. To understand his position, and hence the effect he had on the current structures, one needs to understand the structure of the modern French state and its origins.
In a very perceptive analysis of European political and social structures, the social scientists Andy Green and Jan Germen Janmaat[2] point out that, while most of northern Europe has a relatively democratic, in many cases federalist, structure that allows considerable independence in the peripheries, France’s political structure owes it origins directly to the French Revolution of 1789. As the revolutionaries gained the ascendency and took over the reins of government, they became acutely aware of the possibility of a counter-revolution from the provinces. The revolution itself had been largely a Paris-based affair; out in the countryside and the more distant provinces, the nobility had survived with both their heads and their estates very much intact. The fear was that the provincial nobility remained a potential pool of counter-revolution that could easily overturn the fragile Revolution.
The revolutionaries’ solution was to devise a highly centralised administration that sought to impose Parisian views on the provinces. Ironically, it built on the structures of the Ancien Régime that had preceded it. Two decades later, this was formalised by Napoleon Bonaparte when he became Emperor (and dictator), the main motivation behind his Code Civil of 1804 being to destroy the economic power of the provincial nobility once and for all. It hardly needs rocket science to recognise this as the model for the political and administrative structures of the EU, with its centralised, dictatorial bureaucracy based in Brussels.
There is something else we would do well to remember. French law, unlike the legal system that prevails in England and most of northern Europe (but not Scotland), is based on Roman law. The difference lies in the source of legal authority. In Anglo-Saxon law, that authority is essentially precedence: some previous legal authority (a judge or a jury) has decided that a particular view is reasonable. French law, with its basis in Roman Law, gives that authority to principle. The difference is that, while Anglo-Saxon Law can bend with the wind, French Law cannot – it is stuck with whatever principles have been enacted in the constitution and formal principles of what is right and wrong. That may be one reason why we don’t have a formal constitution: our constitution is written in the commonsense of the common man and is enshrined in the jury system. Juries can come to idiosyncratic decisions when they think the state is trying to pull a fast one over the common man, and those decisions cannot be questioned – even by m’lud.
So, it is that we end up in a battle of intransigent titans: on one side, an attempt to create some kind of commonsense compromise in the best interests of all and, on the other side, a degree of legalistic inflexibility that is so rigid that it is prepared to sacrifice the security and safety of its own citizens in the interests of maintaining legal niceties. What makes the situation so Kafka-esque is Brussels’ recent declaration that it is prepared to forego any arrangements over intelligence exchange despite the fact that the rest of Europe has no intelligence or security system worth speaking of, aside from that provided by the “Five Eyes” (the post-War collaboration between the five Anglo-Saxon countries: Britain, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). Really? The mind boggles. If that’s how cavalier Europe is with the safety of its citizens, I’m glad I don’t live in Europe."


Bloody thick remainateers, didn’t understand what they were voting for.

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: What’s your favourite crock?

-1
The Countdown begins. on 15:48 - Jul 4 with 515 viewsthe_oracle

The Countdown begins. on 14:25 - Jul 4 by Highjack

There are a lot of non EU citizens working in the NHS, from Africa, Asia, the americas. EU citizens will have the same rights as these people. Nobody is getting kicked out. Immigration will always happen.


We voted out to cut immigration, so we are going to keep letting them in? Thought they were taking our jobs.

And no evidence of people going home post brexit?
0
The Countdown begins. on 15:56 - Jul 4 with 507 viewsHighjack

The Countdown begins. on 15:48 - Jul 4 by the_oracle

We voted out to cut immigration, so we are going to keep letting them in? Thought they were taking our jobs.

And no evidence of people going home post brexit?


We don’t have free movement with Nigeria, Australia or Malaysia but there are a thousands of Nigerians, Australians and Malaysians working in the NHS, is that correct? Why are they allowed to work here without a free movement agreement with their countries?

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: What’s your favourite crock?

0
The Countdown begins. on 15:59 - Jul 4 with 500 viewsBatterseajack

The Countdown begins. on 15:25 - Jul 4 by Kerouac

What Have the Remainers Not Understood? By Robin Dunbar



Written by Robin Dunbar

"A major problem with the Remainers’ position seems to be the complete absence of any appreciation of how the EU constitution works and how it came to be the way it is.
Perhaps the most troubling revelation of the post-Brexit debate of the last 18 months has been the extent to which the Remain camp seems to have been desperate to drive us towards a cliff-edge of “No deal” by misleading Brussels into thinking it can play a tough hand. As Yaris Varoufakis discovered at first hand when he had the bad luck to have to negotiate the Greek bailout with Brussels, you can’t negotiate with Brussels – they don’t understand the concept. His advice to Britain after the Brexit vote?  Don’t even bother.  So, in what sense has it been helpful to undermine the UK bargaining hand? The most likely consequence is to force a hard Brexit, because Brussels assumes that the UK will be grateful for whatever crumbs from the table are convenient for Brussels. The majority of the voting public will not accept that, and we and Brussels had better get our minds around the consequences.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is the illusion created by a 51.5% vs 48.5% split in the June 2016 Referendum. Indeed, I have heard claims that the criterion should have been a 60:40 split. But since when has there ever been a 60:40 split in any election in a democratic country? Only Mr Putin, that well-known paragon of democracy, expects votes with better than this kind of split. In genuine democracies, governments are typically elected with around 30-40% of the popular vote – which is why most European countries with proportional representation have coalition governments. A 51.5% vs 48.5% split actually represents a significant majority in favour of Brexit. Indeed, Remainers seem not to appreciate that had we applied a more conventional “first-past-the-post” arrangement, the majority in favour of Brexit would have been overwhelming. Nine voting regions voted to leave (by an average of 56%) against just three that voted to remain (by an average of 59%); on a constituency (i.e. voting area) basis, the Leaves would have had it by a margin of 2:1 on a conventional first past the post basis[1].
The second problem with the Remainers’ position seems to be the complete absence of any appreciation of how the EU constitution works and how it came to be the way it is. Much of the influence on the current constitution of the EU came from Giscard d’Estaing. Who?  Well, that’s my point. For those too young to know, he was the French President between 1974 and 1981, when he was defeated by the socialist candidate François Mitterrand. After relinquishing the French Presidency, Giscard d’Estaing threw himself into the politics of Europe, and – as President of the Convention on the Future of Europe, the body behind the Lisbon Treaty – was heavily involved in the development of its current structures. To understand his position, and hence the effect he had on the current structures, one needs to understand the structure of the modern French state and its origins.
In a very perceptive analysis of European political and social structures, the social scientists Andy Green and Jan Germen Janmaat[2] point out that, while most of northern Europe has a relatively democratic, in many cases federalist, structure that allows considerable independence in the peripheries, France’s political structure owes it origins directly to the French Revolution of 1789. As the revolutionaries gained the ascendency and took over the reins of government, they became acutely aware of the possibility of a counter-revolution from the provinces. The revolution itself had been largely a Paris-based affair; out in the countryside and the more distant provinces, the nobility had survived with both their heads and their estates very much intact. The fear was that the provincial nobility remained a potential pool of counter-revolution that could easily overturn the fragile Revolution.
The revolutionaries’ solution was to devise a highly centralised administration that sought to impose Parisian views on the provinces. Ironically, it built on the structures of the Ancien Régime that had preceded it. Two decades later, this was formalised by Napoleon Bonaparte when he became Emperor (and dictator), the main motivation behind his Code Civil of 1804 being to destroy the economic power of the provincial nobility once and for all. It hardly needs rocket science to recognise this as the model for the political and administrative structures of the EU, with its centralised, dictatorial bureaucracy based in Brussels.
There is something else we would do well to remember. French law, unlike the legal system that prevails in England and most of northern Europe (but not Scotland), is based on Roman law. The difference lies in the source of legal authority. In Anglo-Saxon law, that authority is essentially precedence: some previous legal authority (a judge or a jury) has decided that a particular view is reasonable. French law, with its basis in Roman Law, gives that authority to principle. The difference is that, while Anglo-Saxon Law can bend with the wind, French Law cannot – it is stuck with whatever principles have been enacted in the constitution and formal principles of what is right and wrong. That may be one reason why we don’t have a formal constitution: our constitution is written in the commonsense of the common man and is enshrined in the jury system. Juries can come to idiosyncratic decisions when they think the state is trying to pull a fast one over the common man, and those decisions cannot be questioned – even by m’lud.
So, it is that we end up in a battle of intransigent titans: on one side, an attempt to create some kind of commonsense compromise in the best interests of all and, on the other side, a degree of legalistic inflexibility that is so rigid that it is prepared to sacrifice the security and safety of its own citizens in the interests of maintaining legal niceties. What makes the situation so Kafka-esque is Brussels’ recent declaration that it is prepared to forego any arrangements over intelligence exchange despite the fact that the rest of Europe has no intelligence or security system worth speaking of, aside from that provided by the “Five Eyes” (the post-War collaboration between the five Anglo-Saxon countries: Britain, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). Really? The mind boggles. If that’s how cavalier Europe is with the safety of its citizens, I’m glad I don’t live in Europe."


So;

1) Remainers to blame for pushing us towards a No deal,
2) 51.5% vs 48.5% somehow represents a significant majority in favour of Brexit,
3) The EU is inflexible because a french guy once worked there and he is a decedent of the french revolution.

Thanks for the article, but this remainer doesn't understand any of these points
[Post edited 4 Jul 16:01]
0
The Countdown begins. on 16:01 - Jul 4 with 500 viewsoh_tommy_tommy

The Countdown begins. on 12:18 - Jul 4 by Highjack

You need to stop spending so much time with open racists then. If you didn’t make that up of course.


Facking hell mun


“People I know “

Doesn’t mean I spend time with them .






And no I didn’t make it up .

Poll: DO you support the uk getting involved in Syria

0
Login to get fewer ads

The Countdown begins. on 16:02 - Jul 4 with 497 viewspikeypaul

The Countdown begins. on 15:25 - Jul 4 by Kerouac

What Have the Remainers Not Understood? By Robin Dunbar



Written by Robin Dunbar

"A major problem with the Remainers’ position seems to be the complete absence of any appreciation of how the EU constitution works and how it came to be the way it is.
Perhaps the most troubling revelation of the post-Brexit debate of the last 18 months has been the extent to which the Remain camp seems to have been desperate to drive us towards a cliff-edge of “No deal” by misleading Brussels into thinking it can play a tough hand. As Yaris Varoufakis discovered at first hand when he had the bad luck to have to negotiate the Greek bailout with Brussels, you can’t negotiate with Brussels – they don’t understand the concept. His advice to Britain after the Brexit vote?  Don’t even bother.  So, in what sense has it been helpful to undermine the UK bargaining hand? The most likely consequence is to force a hard Brexit, because Brussels assumes that the UK will be grateful for whatever crumbs from the table are convenient for Brussels. The majority of the voting public will not accept that, and we and Brussels had better get our minds around the consequences.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is the illusion created by a 51.5% vs 48.5% split in the June 2016 Referendum. Indeed, I have heard claims that the criterion should have been a 60:40 split. But since when has there ever been a 60:40 split in any election in a democratic country? Only Mr Putin, that well-known paragon of democracy, expects votes with better than this kind of split. In genuine democracies, governments are typically elected with around 30-40% of the popular vote – which is why most European countries with proportional representation have coalition governments. A 51.5% vs 48.5% split actually represents a significant majority in favour of Brexit. Indeed, Remainers seem not to appreciate that had we applied a more conventional “first-past-the-post” arrangement, the majority in favour of Brexit would have been overwhelming. Nine voting regions voted to leave (by an average of 56%) against just three that voted to remain (by an average of 59%); on a constituency (i.e. voting area) basis, the Leaves would have had it by a margin of 2:1 on a conventional first past the post basis[1].
The second problem with the Remainers’ position seems to be the complete absence of any appreciation of how the EU constitution works and how it came to be the way it is. Much of the influence on the current constitution of the EU came from Giscard d’Estaing. Who?  Well, that’s my point. For those too young to know, he was the French President between 1974 and 1981, when he was defeated by the socialist candidate François Mitterrand. After relinquishing the French Presidency, Giscard d’Estaing threw himself into the politics of Europe, and – as President of the Convention on the Future of Europe, the body behind the Lisbon Treaty – was heavily involved in the development of its current structures. To understand his position, and hence the effect he had on the current structures, one needs to understand the structure of the modern French state and its origins.
In a very perceptive analysis of European political and social structures, the social scientists Andy Green and Jan Germen Janmaat[2] point out that, while most of northern Europe has a relatively democratic, in many cases federalist, structure that allows considerable independence in the peripheries, France’s political structure owes it origins directly to the French Revolution of 1789. As the revolutionaries gained the ascendency and took over the reins of government, they became acutely aware of the possibility of a counter-revolution from the provinces. The revolution itself had been largely a Paris-based affair; out in the countryside and the more distant provinces, the nobility had survived with both their heads and their estates very much intact. The fear was that the provincial nobility remained a potential pool of counter-revolution that could easily overturn the fragile Revolution.
The revolutionaries’ solution was to devise a highly centralised administration that sought to impose Parisian views on the provinces. Ironically, it built on the structures of the Ancien Régime that had preceded it. Two decades later, this was formalised by Napoleon Bonaparte when he became Emperor (and dictator), the main motivation behind his Code Civil of 1804 being to destroy the economic power of the provincial nobility once and for all. It hardly needs rocket science to recognise this as the model for the political and administrative structures of the EU, with its centralised, dictatorial bureaucracy based in Brussels.
There is something else we would do well to remember. French law, unlike the legal system that prevails in England and most of northern Europe (but not Scotland), is based on Roman law. The difference lies in the source of legal authority. In Anglo-Saxon law, that authority is essentially precedence: some previous legal authority (a judge or a jury) has decided that a particular view is reasonable. French law, with its basis in Roman Law, gives that authority to principle. The difference is that, while Anglo-Saxon Law can bend with the wind, French Law cannot – it is stuck with whatever principles have been enacted in the constitution and formal principles of what is right and wrong. That may be one reason why we don’t have a formal constitution: our constitution is written in the commonsense of the common man and is enshrined in the jury system. Juries can come to idiosyncratic decisions when they think the state is trying to pull a fast one over the common man, and those decisions cannot be questioned – even by m’lud.
So, it is that we end up in a battle of intransigent titans: on one side, an attempt to create some kind of commonsense compromise in the best interests of all and, on the other side, a degree of legalistic inflexibility that is so rigid that it is prepared to sacrifice the security and safety of its own citizens in the interests of maintaining legal niceties. What makes the situation so Kafka-esque is Brussels’ recent declaration that it is prepared to forego any arrangements over intelligence exchange despite the fact that the rest of Europe has no intelligence or security system worth speaking of, aside from that provided by the “Five Eyes” (the post-War collaboration between the five Anglo-Saxon countries: Britain, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). Really? The mind boggles. If that’s how cavalier Europe is with the safety of its citizens, I’m glad I don’t live in Europe."


Exactly what I've been saying for months.

The remoaners are doing all they can to make sure we get a no deal hard exit.

The irony of it.

268 AFLI

SIUYRL

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

1
The Countdown begins. on 16:05 - Jul 4 with 490 viewsBatterseajack

The Countdown begins. on 16:02 - Jul 4 by pikeypaul

Exactly what I've been saying for months.

The remoaners are doing all they can to make sure we get a no deal hard exit.

The irony of it.

268 AFLI

SIUYRL


Thought you wanted a hard brexit, harder the better right?
0
The Countdown begins. on 16:14 - Jul 4 with 477 viewspeenemunde

The Countdown begins. on 16:05 - Jul 4 by Batterseajack

Thought you wanted a hard brexit, harder the better right?


There’s no such thing as a soft/hard Brexit.
Like you can’t be half pregnant - you either are or you’re not.
Same with the Frankenstein project, either in or out.
People voted out.....end of.
1

The Countdown begins. on 16:14 - Jul 4 with 477 viewsKerouac


Customs Costs Post-Brexit. Long Version. Graham Gudgin and John Mills





"Jon Thompson Head of HM Revenue and Customs dropped a bombshell on the possibility of the UK leaving the EU Customs Union. He said that to do so would cost UK firms as much as £20 billion a year. We have examined his figured and judge that the real cost may be much lower at around £2 billion per annum. This is a longer version of the article on our BLOG page.

Jon Thompson, head of HMRC stated in evidence to the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee on May 23rd that the additional cost to UK companies of customs administration outside the UK Customs Union could amount a sum in ‘the high teens of billions’. These costs would be additional to any tariffs payable to the EU, although the latter may be zero if a free trade agreement is negotiated.

His calculations which, as far as we know not been set out in a published paper, are based on four elements.

An estimate that leaving the customs union will involve 200 million new customs declarations to the UK authorities.
Each UK declaration will cost £32.50 giving an aggregate cost of £6.5 billion
Assuming a similar cost for declarations to the EU add a further £6.5 billion
Additional costs of declaring rules of origin content of imposts of £7billion.
Thi total cost at up to £20 billion is huge, amounting to over 1% of GDP or 6% of corporate post-tax profits. It is also equivalent to 5.6% of the value of UK trade with the EU (imports plus exports). How is such a large figure generated?

The figure for 200 million additional customs declarations is odd. The figure comes from a National Audit Office report on the Customs Declaration Service (July13th 2017) although the NAO sources the key numbers back to HMRC. The NAO report shows in its figure 2 that there are currently 55 million customs declarations for the £339 billion of trade (imports and exports) with the non-EU world. This amounts one declaration for each £6,200 of trade. For some reason HMRC then calculates that there will be 200 million new post-Brexit declarations for the £357 billion trade with the EU, i.e. one declaration for each £1800 of trade. The assumption seems to be that there will be a much larger number of very small declarations in the case of trade with the EU.

The great majority of current declarations for non-EU trade are for imports (47 out of the 55 million declarations). For exports the average size of consignment is £19,000 compared with only £4000 for imports. However, HMRC judge that most declarations for trade with the EU will be for exports (109 out of 200 million). In this case the average size of export consignments is only £1200. For imports from the EU it is £2400. Hence, HMRC’s expectation is that exports to the EU will consist of a very large number of relatively tiny consignments, unlike exports to non-EU destinations where the average consignment size will be 16 times larger.

The FT report (26th May, p3) that ‘the HMRC estimate was based on 1 billion parcels per annum, mostly from the EU’. Some of these will go to companies but many may go directly to consumers (and hence should not be included in estimates of potential costs for companies). HMRC currently charge a handling fee of £8 for goods over £15, but this threshold could be raised or abolished for companies if charges were for were judged to be onerous.

HMRC also appear to have double-counted the number of necessary declarations. There figures include both imports and exports, so there should not be a need to assume that the declarations to UK customs authorities are duplicated in second declarations to EU authorities.

HMRC state that there are currently 68,000 traders trading solely with non-EU countries and 73,000 with both EU and non-EU countries. They also estimate that 181,000 traders trade solely with the EU, and currently need no declarations, although firm figures are not available. That gives 141,000 trading with non-EU countries and a partially overlapping 254,000 with the EU. Since the value of goods trade with non-EU countries is greater than for EU countries, this again implies a large volume of small-scale trade with the EU.

The average cost customs declaration was given by Jon Thompson as £32.50. This appears to have been derived from a KPMG study for HMRC[ii] . The total cost of customs administration (presumably only for non-EU trade) is given as £794 million. Many of these costs were for postal transactions and applied to small and micro businesses (KPMG table 6)) and could potentially be mitigated under a max-fac option especially within a free-trade framework.

The HMRC’s overall cost estimate of around £20 billion seem hugely inflated. Other studies would support this conclusion:

Swiss customs have estimated the costs of running their customs systems at 0.1% of GDP. That’s a tenth of the HMRC figure from yesterday[iii]. .
A World Bank study has customs clearance costs per container of $138-$212[iv], equivalent to 1% of a container with contents valued at £15,000.
HMRC’s estimate for rules of origin represents about 4% of EU export value in 2017 which is towards the top end of academic estimates. It is unclear whether it also includes EU exporters’ costs. A paper from the WTO suggests many published estimates of these costs are much too high[v].
A KPMG study for Dutch customs estimates admin costs at around 1% of the value of consignments[vi].
Tate and Lyle manage annual imports of bulk raw cane sugar themselves with a team of two people. Annual costs for the team are £110000 all in, against a value of imports at £270 million ‘Attributing the whole cost of this team to customs processes would make the customs procedures cost the equivalent of 0.041% of the value of the product. Given the other roles of this team, the true cost is more likely 0.01% to 0.02% of the value of the product.’
A specific example from Tate and Lyle was the importing of 11 containers of cane sugar from Mauritius administered through a third party customs specialist. Total customs costs were £76.13 for eleven containers, 0.05% of the value of the product imported, which Tate and Lyle say was £140,000. Additional inspection costs could be £50-100 per container – but are ‘irregular’.
Even the costs associated with meat imports, which are high due to inspection costs, are estimated by the University of Nottingham to be around 1% of the value of consignments[vii].
Douglas McWilliams has said that he thinks HMRC have confused container-level costs with consignments and so exaggerated the real total costs by a factor of 20[viii].
The HMRC figure also does not seem to accord with practical experience. The retail company JML judges that customs administration costs amount to around 1% of the value of consignments. JML does close to £100 million of trade per annum with 85 countries and ships roughly 2,000 containers a year from one place to another in the world. About 80% of these movements are on WTO terms outside customs unions or free trade areas. The average contents value per JML container is around £15k.

The only additional paperwork requirements for business from being outside rather than inside the Customs Union are the production of Certificates of Origin and any necessary compliance certification. This can’t possibly cost £7bn a year or anything like it for firms trading with the EU after Brexit. As things stand at the moment, inside the Customs Union, all shipments from the UK to the EU27 involve invoices and dealing with VAT. If this sort of paperwork is a manageable burden, why should the addition of Certificates of Origin and compliance documentation be such a huge additional cost?

Applying the same 1% to the total value of UK goods trade with the EU (imports plus exports) would give a total cost of £3.6 billion. However, if firms are already submitting invoices and VAT returns for trade with the EU, then the additional burden may in practice be only a proportion of this. A reasonable estimate might be total costs around £2 billion, which is one tenth of the HMRC estimate. What is certain is that no government policy decisions should be made on the basis of shoddy calculations without formal papers which are open to scrutiny from trade experts and businesses with practical experience of trading across borders."





Dr Graham Gudgin is Honorary Research Associate at the Centre for Business Studies, University of Cambridge

John Mills is chairman of JML and Chair of Labour Leave. He is the author of several books on economic policy

Poll: Who would you most like to see banned?

1
The Countdown begins. on 16:20 - Jul 4 with 474 viewsvetchonian

The Countdown begins. on 16:02 - Jul 4 by pikeypaul

Exactly what I've been saying for months.

The remoaners are doing all they can to make sure we get a no deal hard exit.

The irony of it.

268 AFLI

SIUYRL


OK
Why would remainers want a "No deal hard Brexit"?
Most remainers would be looking for a compromise to ensure we stay in the market and customs union!
It is Brexiteers who want the no deal and hard Brexit otherwise why vote to leave?

Poll: Will CCFC win a game this season?

0
The Countdown begins. on 16:25 - Jul 4 with 468 viewspikeypaul

The Countdown begins. on 16:05 - Jul 4 by Batterseajack

Thought you wanted a hard brexit, harder the better right?


graph boy, I do want a no deal Brexit and I am very happy like stated in the above article you remoaners are pushing it that way with out even knowing it.
Thank you.
The harder the better.

268 AFLI

SIUYRL
[Post edited 4 Jul 16:26]

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

1
The Countdown begins. on 16:32 - Jul 4 with 449 viewspeenemunde

The Countdown begins. on 16:20 - Jul 4 by vetchonian

OK
Why would remainers want a "No deal hard Brexit"?
Most remainers would be looking for a compromise to ensure we stay in the market and customs union!
It is Brexiteers who want the no deal and hard Brexit otherwise why vote to leave?


Staying in the free market and cu is staying in the eu.
Dull as fu*k some of you are.
1
The Countdown begins. on 16:34 - Jul 4 with 449 viewssherpajacob

The Countdown begins. on 16:14 - Jul 4 by peenemunde

There’s no such thing as a soft/hard Brexit.
Like you can’t be half pregnant - you either are or you’re not.
Same with the Frankenstein project, either in or out.
People voted out.....end of.


Hairy muff.

Norway, Switzerland and Andorra are not in the EU, so let's use their model.

Norway is in the single market.
Switzerland is in schengen.
Andorra uses the Euro.

Let Brexit mean brexit. We are out in 2019

Let's embrace single market membership, schengen and the Euro.

The will of the people and the mandate of the referendum question has been upheld.

Nobody can complain otherwise.

Poll: Your favourite ever Swans shirt sponsor?

0
The Countdown begins. on 16:35 - Jul 4 with 446 viewsvetchonian

The Countdown begins. on 16:14 - Jul 4 by Kerouac


Customs Costs Post-Brexit. Long Version. Graham Gudgin and John Mills





"Jon Thompson Head of HM Revenue and Customs dropped a bombshell on the possibility of the UK leaving the EU Customs Union. He said that to do so would cost UK firms as much as £20 billion a year. We have examined his figured and judge that the real cost may be much lower at around £2 billion per annum. This is a longer version of the article on our BLOG page.

Jon Thompson, head of HMRC stated in evidence to the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee on May 23rd that the additional cost to UK companies of customs administration outside the UK Customs Union could amount a sum in ‘the high teens of billions’. These costs would be additional to any tariffs payable to the EU, although the latter may be zero if a free trade agreement is negotiated.

His calculations which, as far as we know not been set out in a published paper, are based on four elements.

An estimate that leaving the customs union will involve 200 million new customs declarations to the UK authorities.
Each UK declaration will cost £32.50 giving an aggregate cost of £6.5 billion
Assuming a similar cost for declarations to the EU add a further £6.5 billion
Additional costs of declaring rules of origin content of imposts of £7billion.
Thi total cost at up to £20 billion is huge, amounting to over 1% of GDP or 6% of corporate post-tax profits. It is also equivalent to 5.6% of the value of UK trade with the EU (imports plus exports). How is such a large figure generated?

The figure for 200 million additional customs declarations is odd. The figure comes from a National Audit Office report on the Customs Declaration Service (July13th 2017) although the NAO sources the key numbers back to HMRC. The NAO report shows in its figure 2 that there are currently 55 million customs declarations for the £339 billion of trade (imports and exports) with the non-EU world. This amounts one declaration for each £6,200 of trade. For some reason HMRC then calculates that there will be 200 million new post-Brexit declarations for the £357 billion trade with the EU, i.e. one declaration for each £1800 of trade. The assumption seems to be that there will be a much larger number of very small declarations in the case of trade with the EU.

The great majority of current declarations for non-EU trade are for imports (47 out of the 55 million declarations). For exports the average size of consignment is £19,000 compared with only £4000 for imports. However, HMRC judge that most declarations for trade with the EU will be for exports (109 out of 200 million). In this case the average size of export consignments is only £1200. For imports from the EU it is £2400. Hence, HMRC’s expectation is that exports to the EU will consist of a very large number of relatively tiny consignments, unlike exports to non-EU destinations where the average consignment size will be 16 times larger.

The FT report (26th May, p3) that ‘the HMRC estimate was based on 1 billion parcels per annum, mostly from the EU’. Some of these will go to companies but many may go directly to consumers (and hence should not be included in estimates of potential costs for companies). HMRC currently charge a handling fee of £8 for goods over £15, but this threshold could be raised or abolished for companies if charges were for were judged to be onerous.

HMRC also appear to have double-counted the number of necessary declarations. There figures include both imports and exports, so there should not be a need to assume that the declarations to UK customs authorities are duplicated in second declarations to EU authorities.

HMRC state that there are currently 68,000 traders trading solely with non-EU countries and 73,000 with both EU and non-EU countries. They also estimate that 181,000 traders trade solely with the EU, and currently need no declarations, although firm figures are not available. That gives 141,000 trading with non-EU countries and a partially overlapping 254,000 with the EU. Since the value of goods trade with non-EU countries is greater than for EU countries, this again implies a large volume of small-scale trade with the EU.

The average cost customs declaration was given by Jon Thompson as £32.50. This appears to have been derived from a KPMG study for HMRC[ii] . The total cost of customs administration (presumably only for non-EU trade) is given as £794 million. Many of these costs were for postal transactions and applied to small and micro businesses (KPMG table 6)) and could potentially be mitigated under a max-fac option especially within a free-trade framework.

The HMRC’s overall cost estimate of around £20 billion seem hugely inflated. Other studies would support this conclusion:

Swiss customs have estimated the costs of running their customs systems at 0.1% of GDP. That’s a tenth of the HMRC figure from yesterday[iii]. .
A World Bank study has customs clearance costs per container of $138-$212[iv], equivalent to 1% of a container with contents valued at £15,000.
HMRC’s estimate for rules of origin represents about 4% of EU export value in 2017 which is towards the top end of academic estimates. It is unclear whether it also includes EU exporters’ costs. A paper from the WTO suggests many published estimates of these costs are much too high[v].
A KPMG study for Dutch customs estimates admin costs at around 1% of the value of consignments[vi].
Tate and Lyle manage annual imports of bulk raw cane sugar themselves with a team of two people. Annual costs for the team are £110000 all in, against a value of imports at £270 million ‘Attributing the whole cost of this team to customs processes would make the customs procedures cost the equivalent of 0.041% of the value of the product. Given the other roles of this team, the true cost is more likely 0.01% to 0.02% of the value of the product.’
A specific example from Tate and Lyle was the importing of 11 containers of cane sugar from Mauritius administered through a third party customs specialist. Total customs costs were £76.13 for eleven containers, 0.05% of the value of the product imported, which Tate and Lyle say was £140,000. Additional inspection costs could be £50-100 per container – but are ‘irregular’.
Even the costs associated with meat imports, which are high due to inspection costs, are estimated by the University of Nottingham to be around 1% of the value of consignments[vii].
Douglas McWilliams has said that he thinks HMRC have confused container-level costs with consignments and so exaggerated the real total costs by a factor of 20[viii].
The HMRC figure also does not seem to accord with practical experience. The retail company JML judges that customs administration costs amount to around 1% of the value of consignments. JML does close to £100 million of trade per annum with 85 countries and ships roughly 2,000 containers a year from one place to another in the world. About 80% of these movements are on WTO terms outside customs unions or free trade areas. The average contents value per JML container is around £15k.

The only additional paperwork requirements for business from being outside rather than inside the Customs Union are the production of Certificates of Origin and any necessary compliance certification. This can’t possibly cost £7bn a year or anything like it for firms trading with the EU after Brexit. As things stand at the moment, inside the Customs Union, all shipments from the UK to the EU27 involve invoices and dealing with VAT. If this sort of paperwork is a manageable burden, why should the addition of Certificates of Origin and compliance documentation be such a huge additional cost?

Applying the same 1% to the total value of UK goods trade with the EU (imports plus exports) would give a total cost of £3.6 billion. However, if firms are already submitting invoices and VAT returns for trade with the EU, then the additional burden may in practice be only a proportion of this. A reasonable estimate might be total costs around £2 billion, which is one tenth of the HMRC estimate. What is certain is that no government policy decisions should be made on the basis of shoddy calculations without formal papers which are open to scrutiny from trade experts and businesses with practical experience of trading across borders."





Dr Graham Gudgin is Honorary Research Associate at the Centre for Business Studies, University of Cambridge

John Mills is chairman of JML and Chair of Labour Leave. He is the author of several books on economic policy


Thats great but how much real trade do the Swiss do with the EU comparewd to us?
Many businesses here supply and receive good to the EU...I work for a company whihc ships the equivalent of two containers per week to and from the EU .....48 weeks of the year 96 containers...a liitle different to the Tat & Lyle example!

As I said both sided eperts and academics can pick on "examples" ...
SO we trade with the US who have protectionist agreements such as NAFTA! How will that work?

Poll: Will CCFC win a game this season?

0
The Countdown begins. on 16:40 - Jul 4 with 437 viewspikeypaul

The Countdown begins. on 16:20 - Jul 4 by vetchonian

OK
Why would remainers want a "No deal hard Brexit"?
Most remainers would be looking for a compromise to ensure we stay in the market and customs union!
It is Brexiteers who want the no deal and hard Brexit otherwise why vote to leave?


They don't but their pathetic anti democratic actions are ironically making it a real possibility.

268 AFLI

The harder the better ,no deal lease.

SIUYRL

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

1
The Countdown begins. on 16:42 - Jul 4 with 434 viewsBatterseajack

The Countdown begins. on 16:14 - Jul 4 by peenemunde

There’s no such thing as a soft/hard Brexit.
Like you can’t be half pregnant - you either are or you’re not.
Same with the Frankenstein project, either in or out.
People voted out.....end of.


Just throwing PP's terminology back at him.
0

The Countdown begins. on 16:46 - Jul 4 with 429 viewspikeypaul

So if there is no difference between the way we come out and you know we ARE coming out WTF have you been crying about for the last two years.

268 AFLI

SUCK IT UP LOSER.

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

1
The Countdown begins. on 16:48 - Jul 4 with 426 viewsBatterseajack

The Countdown begins. on 16:32 - Jul 4 by peenemunde

Staying in the free market and cu is staying in the eu.
Dull as fu*k some of you are.


Norway out of the EU, but in the free market.
Turkey is in the customs union and not in the EU.

...and we're the dull ones

0
The Countdown begins. on 16:57 - Jul 4 with 410 viewssherpajacob

The Countdown begins. on 16:32 - Jul 4 by peenemunde

Staying in the free market and cu is staying in the eu.
Dull as fu*k some of you are.


Let's try this in short manageable sentences for the hard of thinking.

Norway, Switzerland and Andorra are not in the EU,

Poll: Your favourite ever Swans shirt sponsor?

0

The Countdown begins. on 17:05 - Jul 4 with 396 viewspeenemunde

Staying in the free market and cu means the UK would still be under the jurisdiction of the eu in many areas.
Unacceptable.
1
The Countdown begins. on 17:15 - Jul 4 with 386 viewssherpajacob

The Countdown begins. on 17:05 - Jul 4 by peenemunde

Staying in the free market and cu means the UK would still be under the jurisdiction of the eu in many areas.
Unacceptable.


Let's try this one.

Is Norway in the EU?

Poll: Your favourite ever Swans shirt sponsor?

0
The Countdown begins. on 17:16 - Jul 4 with 383 viewsKerouac

The Countdown begins. on 16:57 - Jul 4 by sherpajacob

Let's try this in short manageable sentences for the hard of thinking.

Norway, Switzerland and Andorra are not in the EU,


...and they all take it up the arse from the EU.

We don't need to play EU's games. We can do just fine without them and the consequences of a no-deal Brexit will eventually see EU bureaucrats at best picking up their p45s, at worst, swinging from lamp posts

Poll: Who would you most like to see banned?

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