BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

Stevo_666 said:

I've explained before the advantages of being able to set rules that are applicable to the UK rather than being some compromise effort to suit 20-odd countries with different circumstances and needs.

@Rick, RES and TWH: above is the nub of my original point. Do you disagree with that, and if so, why?

Its just a matter of scale. You could very easily apply that logic to the U.K. and England vs Scotland or the South East vs the rest of the U.K. but I suspect you don’t fancy that for the same reasons I don’t fancy the U.K. leaving the EU.

Why is compromise so bad?

tailwindhome

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also why do you think the EU is so insistent on this 'level playing field'. Could it be because they are worried that their playing field isn't very good compared to what ours could become? In which case, it is a tacit admission that of the benefits of being able to set your own rules.

Sorry, what?

Do you really not get it? I'll make it a bit simpler for you. EU red tape is pretty extensive and restrictive and not necessarily the most appropriate because it is by its very nature a compromise - as mentioned in my first paragraph above.

We can do better for the UK in many cases by setting our own rules.

"they're worried their playing field isnt very good compared to what ours could become"

Eh?

Either you're pretending to be thick, or...

CBA to explain it again.

We're going to have a better field than them, the bestest field ever.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

Stevo_666 said:

I've explained before the advantages of being able to set rules that are applicable to the UK rather than being some compromise effort to suit 20-odd countries with different circumstances and needs.

@Rick, RES and TWH: above is the nub of my original point. Do you disagree with that, and if so, why?

They are fair points but they are overwhelmed by the macroeconomic downsides of leaving.

If there was an economic case for leaving do you not think Boris would make it?

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

Stevo_666 said:

I've explained before the advantages of being able to set rules that are applicable to the UK rather than being some compromise effort to suit 20-odd countries with different circumstances and needs.

@Rick, RES and TWH: above is the nub of my original point. Do you disagree with that, and if so, why?

Its just a matter of scale. You could very easily apply that logic to the U.K. and England vs Scotland or the South East vs the rest of the U.K. but I suspect you don’t fancy that for the same reasons I don’t fancy the U.K. leaving the EU.

Why is compromise so bad?

So on balance, do you agree or disagree with my point?

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

Stevo_666 said:

Stevo_666 said:

I've explained before the advantages of being able to set rules that are applicable to the UK rather than being some compromise effort to suit 20-odd countries with different circumstances and needs.

@Rick, RES and TWH: above is the nub of my original point. Do you disagree with that, and if so, why?

They are fair points but they are overwhelmed by the macroeconomic downsides of leaving.

If there was an economic case for leaving do you not think Boris would make it?

That's not the point here though. Same question to you SC - on balance, do you agree or disagree with my point above?

I've been accused of deflection and not answering questions o er the last few days - and here I am being shown how to do it properly

Stevo_666

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also why do you think the EU is so insistent on this 'level playing field'. Could it be because they are worried that their playing field isn't very good compared to what ours could become? In which case, it is a tacit admission that of the benefits of being able to set your own rules.

Sorry, what?

Do you really not get it? I'll make it a bit simpler for you. EU red tape is pretty extensive and restrictive and not necessarily the most appropriate because it is by its very nature a compromise - as mentioned in my first paragraph above.

We can do better for the UK in many cases by setting our own rules.

"they're worried their playing field isnt very good compared to what ours could become"

Eh?

Either you're pretending to be thick, or...

CBA to explain it again.

We're going to have a better field than them, the bestest field ever.

Are you going to answer my question above?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also why do you think the EU is so insistent on this 'level playing field'. Could it be because they are worried that their playing field isn't very good compared to what ours could become? In which case, it is a tacit admission that of the benefits of being able to set your own rules.

Sorry, what?

Do you really not get it? I'll make it a bit simpler for you. EU red tape is pretty extensive and restrictive and not necessarily the most appropriate because it is by its very nature a compromise - as mentioned in my first paragraph above.

We can do better for the UK in many cases by setting our own rules.

More generalism. Can we have a concrete example of such a regulation that we would realistically change and some kind of qualitative or quantitive prediction (😬) of the net benefit? The VAT rules get a lot of press (Tampon Tax) but I think someone calculated that the net benefit was £40/woman over an entire lifetime. Surely there is something else.

I didn't mention tampon tax. It's a pretty minor example, but in principle part of our new found freedom to act.

We can certainly improve on some of the rather cumbersome EU rules in areas such as:
Digital economy
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/02/17/europes-digital-single-market-doomed-failure/
Biotech
https://the-scientist.com/news-analysis/slow-progress-for-eu-biotech-50123
Financial services
https://ftadviser.com/opinion/2019/01/11/mifid-ii-goes-too-far-and-is-too-costly-to-implement/

Now you give me some concrete examples of why EU rules are so much better.

Thanks. To take your last point first, it's not that EU regulations are perfect - far from it - but that the benefits of improving on these regulations need to be offset against the costs of increasing trade barriers to arrive at an assessment of whether there is a net benefit or cost of diverging. We can have a bespoke suit of regs made to suit us perfectly, but if it costs several times more than the off-the-peg EU suit, are we really better off? Someone has had a stab at assessing the costs and benefits for a potential US deal where there may be some convergence, but I think it is significant that the government has specifically ruled out making any such assessment for the time being. Instead we just get a load of puff about sovereignty and the iniquity of meeting someone else's standards.

On the specific examples:
Digital: I'm afraid I can only read the first paragraph, and I think it might be a bit premature to write off the Digital Single Market just yet, if the sub-head "The internet and app economy is driven by entrepreneurs, not officials and commissioners" is anything to go by, I think this is a valid point. The question is then, what are we proposing instead? There are vague ambitions to "lead the world" in this field, but nothing specific, so how can we make a judgement on whether we will be better off or not? As a much smaller entity, will we have the heft to define global standards for the digital economy?
Biotech: the criticism in this article seems to be that some member states are failing to implement the directive on protection of biotech inventions, rather than a problem with the directive itself. I agree that the EU's approach to GMO is pretty backward, but we would need to be very careful about allowing GMO into, say, our agriculture given that a lot of it is exported to the EU. And the nearest thing we seem to have to a plan of what we would do differently is one of Dominic Cummings's blog posts on how we should refocus the economy onto the sciences.
Mifid ii: I don't feel qualified to comment on this specifically, but again the question is what is the alternative plan and what are the benefits and costs of adopting this versus aligning with the imperfect EU rules.

The other point is that if we are to re-write regulations in all these areas, it is going to be years before these are ready, and they will be subject to exactly the same wrangling over competing objectives that you have illustrated above. As you can probably guess, I remain to be convinced that there are sufficient benefits to diverging to justify the increased trade barriers of doing so. We seem to have only got as far as identifying areas where we *could* do better subject to further investigation.

tailwindhome

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also why do you think the EU is so insistent on this 'level playing field'. Could it be because they are worried that their playing field isn't very good compared to what ours could become? In which case, it is a tacit admission that of the benefits of being able to set your own rules.

Sorry, what?

Do you really not get it? I'll make it a bit simpler for you. EU red tape is pretty extensive and restrictive and not necessarily the most appropriate because it is by its very nature a compromise - as mentioned in my first paragraph above.

We can do better for the UK in many cases by setting our own rules.

"they're worried their playing field isnt very good compared to what ours could become"

Eh?

Either you're pretending to be thick, or...

CBA to explain it again.

We're going to have a better field than them, the bestest field ever.

Are you going to answer my question above?

Everyone will come to play on our field not theirs.

It'll be our pitch. Our rules.

Its coming home.

rjsterry

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also why do you think the EU is so insistent on this 'level playing field'. Could it be because they are worried that their playing field isn't very good compared to what ours could become? In which case, it is a tacit admission that of the benefits of being able to set your own rules.

Sorry, what?

Do you really not get it? I'll make it a bit simpler for you. EU red tape is pretty extensive and restrictive and not necessarily the most appropriate because it is by its very nature a compromise - as mentioned in my first paragraph above.

We can do better for the UK in many cases by setting our own rules.

"they're worried their playing field isnt very good compared to what ours could become"

Eh?

To torture this metaphor a bit more, surely it's more a case of them being worried that when we do play on their field we'll play 12 men and ignore the offside rule.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

Stevo_666 said:

I've explained before the advantages of being able to set rules that are applicable to the UK rather than being some compromise effort to suit 20-odd countries with different circumstances and needs.

@Rick, RES and TWH: above is the nub of my original point. Do you disagree with that, and if so, why?

Its just a matter of scale. You could very easily apply that logic to the U.K. and England vs Scotland or the South East vs the rest of the U.K. but I suspect you don’t fancy that for the same reasons I don’t fancy the U.K. leaving the EU.

Why is compromise so bad?

So on balance, do you agree or disagree with my point?

for the same reason you want the UK to be united and not fragmented in a whole bunch of different markets, I want the same at a European level.

i.e. the advantages of being fragmented are smaller than the disadvantages, particularly in the context of the arrangement the UK had with the EU.

morstar

The exact details are arguably an unnecessary distraction.
At a basic level, independence provides the opportunity to do what we want on our own terms.
As a partner in a larger organisation, we benefit from pooled resources and efficiencies at the cost of compromise and loss of independence.
There can be benefits in leaving but everything about this Brexit process just confirms my opinion that we think (as a nation) that everything successful about us is a result of our own endeavours whilst everything bad is caused by other parties. We seem to think that just leaving is enough and is a result in itself because our place in the world is secured.

We must get on and make the best of the opportunities that do come but the government doesn’t seem to have any clear direction beyond ideological concepts.

Out of this, out of that and so on and so forth. We seem adept at dismantling the stuff we don’t like.
However, what positive steps have been taken to introduce structures or policies that demonstrate taking advantage of this new global outlook.
We remain stuck in saying what we don’t want.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also why do you think the EU is so insistent on this 'level playing field'. Could it be because they are worried that their playing field isn't very good compared to what ours could become? In which case, it is a tacit admission that of the benefits of being able to set your own rules.

Sorry, what?

Do you really not get it? I'll make it a bit simpler for you. EU red tape is pretty extensive and restrictive and not necessarily the most appropriate because it is by its very nature a compromise - as mentioned in my first paragraph above.

We can do better for the UK in many cases by setting our own rules.

More generalism. Can we have a concrete example of such a regulation that we would realistically change and some kind of qualitative or quantitive prediction (😬) of the net benefit? The VAT rules get a lot of press (Tampon Tax) but I think someone calculated that the net benefit was £40/woman over an entire lifetime. Surely there is something else.

I didn't mention tampon tax. It's a pretty minor example, but in principle part of our new found freedom to act.

We can certainly improve on some of the rather cumbersome EU rules in areas such as:
Digital economy
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/02/17/europes-digital-single-market-doomed-failure/
Biotech
https://the-scientist.com/news-analysis/slow-progress-for-eu-biotech-50123
Financial services
https://ftadviser.com/opinion/2019/01/11/mifid-ii-goes-too-far-and-is-too-costly-to-implement/

Now you give me some concrete examples of why EU rules are so much better.

Thanks. To take your last point first, it's not that EU regulations are perfect - far from it - but that the benefits of improving on these regulations need to be offset against the costs of increasing trade barriers to arrive at an assessment of whether there is a net benefit or cost of diverging. We can have a bespoke suit of regs made to suit us perfectly, but if it costs several times more than the off-the-peg EU suit, are we really better off? Someone has had a stab at assessing the costs and benefits for a potential US deal where there may be some convergence, but I think it is significant that the government has specifically ruled out making any such assessment for the time being. Instead we just get a load of puff about sovereignty and the iniquity of meeting someone else's standards.

On the specific examples:
Digital: I'm afraid I can only read the first paragraph, and I think it might be a bit premature to write off the Digital Single Market just yet, if the sub-head "The internet and app economy is driven by entrepreneurs, not officials and commissioners" is anything to go by, I think this is a valid point. The question is then, what are we proposing instead? There are vague ambitions to "lead the world" in this field, but nothing specific, so how can we make a judgement on whether we will be better off or not? As a much smaller entity, will we have the heft to define global standards for the digital economy?
Biotech: the criticism in this article seems to be that some member states are failing to implement the directive on protection of biotech inventions, rather than a problem with the directive itself. I agree that the EU's approach to GMO is pretty backward, but we would need to be very careful about allowing GMO into, say, our agriculture given that a lot of it is exported to the EU. And the nearest thing we seem to have to a plan of what we would do differently is one of Dominic Cummings's blog posts on how we should refocus the economy onto the sciences.
Mifid ii: I don't feel qualified to comment on this specifically, but again the question is what is the alternative plan and what are the benefits and costs of adopting this versus aligning with the imperfect EU rules.

The other point is that if we are to re-write regulations in all these areas, it is going to be years before these are ready, and they will be subject to exactly the same wrangling over competing objectives that you have illustrated above. As you can probably guess, I remain to be convinced that there are sufficient benefits to diverging to justify the increased trade barriers of doing so. We seem to have only got as far as identifying areas where we *could* do better subject to further investigation.

I wasn't after War and Peace.

With regard to my query above - in the words of a certain Cake Stopper - ATFQ.

Same goes for the rest of you hypocritical question dodgers

Stevo_666

Stevo_666 said:

Stevo_666 said:

I've explained before the advantages of being able to set rules that are applicable to the UK rather than being some compromise effort to suit 20-odd countries with different circumstances and needs.

@Rick, RES and TWH: above is the nub of my original point. Do you disagree with that, and if so, why?

Here's a little reminder of my question. Just press 'show previous quotes'

It's a 'yes' or 'no' answer format. You can answer 'on balance' if you want.

Dorset_Boy

With regards to MIFID II, it is full of pointless stupidity and could be massively improved. It is hugely costly with virtually no benefit. Things like reporting 10% market falls (normal things) just encourage poor investor decisions. Itemising every single cost of investment separately is very costly and time intensive, for no benefit to the investor. Forcing annual reviews of suitability is costly and pointless for many (though not all) investors.
Just some examples.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

tailwindhome said:

Stevo_666 said:

Also why do you think the EU is so insistent on this 'level playing field'. Could it be because they are worried that their playing field isn't very good compared to what ours could become? In which case, it is a tacit admission that of the benefits of being able to set your own rules.

Sorry, what?

Do you really not get it? I'll make it a bit simpler for you. EU red tape is pretty extensive and restrictive and not necessarily the most appropriate because it is by its very nature a compromise - as mentioned in my first paragraph above.

We can do better for the UK in many cases by setting our own rules.

More generalism. Can we have a concrete example of such a regulation that we would realistically change and some kind of qualitative or quantitive prediction (😬) of the net benefit? The VAT rules get a lot of press (Tampon Tax) but I think someone calculated that the net benefit was £40/woman over an entire lifetime. Surely there is something else.

I didn't mention tampon tax. It's a pretty minor example, but in principle part of our new found freedom to act.

We can certainly improve on some of the rather cumbersome EU rules in areas such as:
Digital economy
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/02/17/europes-digital-single-market-doomed-failure/
Biotech
https://the-scientist.com/news-analysis/slow-progress-for-eu-biotech-50123
Financial services
https://ftadviser.com/opinion/2019/01/11/mifid-ii-goes-too-far-and-is-too-costly-to-implement/

Now you give me some concrete examples of why EU rules are so much better.

Thanks. To take your last point first, it's not that EU regulations are perfect - far from it - but that the benefits of improving on these regulations need to be offset against the costs of increasing trade barriers to arrive at an assessment of whether there is a net benefit or cost of diverging. We can have a bespoke suit of regs made to suit us perfectly, but if it costs several times more than the off-the-peg EU suit, are we really better off? Someone has had a stab at assessing the costs and benefits for a potential US deal where there may be some convergence, but I think it is significant that the government has specifically ruled out making any such assessment for the time being. Instead we just get a load of puff about sovereignty and the iniquity of meeting someone else's standards.

On the specific examples:
Digital: I'm afraid I can only read the first paragraph, and I think it might be a bit premature to write off the Digital Single Market just yet, if the sub-head "The internet and app economy is driven by entrepreneurs, not officials and commissioners" is anything to go by, I think this is a valid point. The question is then, what are we proposing instead? There are vague ambitions to "lead the world" in this field, but nothing specific, so how can we make a judgement on whether we will be better off or not? As a much smaller entity, will we have the heft to define global standards for the digital economy?
Biotech: the criticism in this article seems to be that some member states are failing to implement the directive on protection of biotech inventions, rather than a problem with the directive itself. I agree that the EU's approach to GMO is pretty backward, but we would need to be very careful about allowing GMO into, say, our agriculture given that a lot of it is exported to the EU. And the nearest thing we seem to have to a plan of what we would do differently is one of Dominic Cummings's blog posts on how we should refocus the economy onto the sciences.
Mifid ii: I don't feel qualified to comment on this specifically, but again the question is what is the alternative plan and what are the benefits and costs of adopting this versus aligning with the imperfect EU rules.

The other point is that if we are to re-write regulations in all these areas, it is going to be years before these are ready, and they will be subject to exactly the same wrangling over competing objectives that you have illustrated above. As you can probably guess, I remain to be convinced that there are sufficient benefits to diverging to justify the increased trade barriers of doing so. We seem to have only got as far as identifying areas where we *could* do better subject to further investigation.

I wasn't after War and Peace.

With regard to my query above - in the words of a certain Cake Stopper - ATFQ.

Same goes for the rest of you hypocritical question dodgers

I was responding to the points you made. Tl;dr: yes, these are all things that *could* be improved or tailored more to UK needs, but my question was how and to what overall benefit. None of these improvements will be cost free. I'd be interested if anyone has looked at it in detail. I think that ATFQ.

surrey_commuter

If your point is that there are some benefits to making decisions purely for yourself then I made the observation that this is far outweighed by other factors so does not pass the so what test.

There is no economic case for leaving.

rjsterry

Dorset_Boy said:

With regards to MIFID II, it is full of pointless stupidity and could be massively improved. It is hugely costly with virtually no benefit. Things like reporting 10% market falls (normal things) just encourage poor investor decisions. Itemising every single cost of investment separately is very costly and time intensive, for no benefit to the investor. Forcing annual reviews of suitability is costly and pointless for many (though not all) investors.
Just some examples.

Happy to take your word for it that it fails to achieve the things it is supposed to do. Is it the case that we could manage without it entirely or do we need to replace it with something else? Has anyone quantified the relative costs of each?

surrey_commuter

So to recap, SteveO wants to leave so that we can set regulations with only our own priorities to consider.

Dorset_Boy

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

With regards to MIFID II, it is full of pointless stupidity and could be massively improved. It is hugely costly with virtually no benefit. Things like reporting 10% market falls (normal things) just encourage poor investor decisions. Itemising every single cost of investment separately is very costly and time intensive, for no benefit to the investor. Forcing annual reviews of suitability is costly and pointless for many (though not all) investors.
Just some examples.

Happy to take your word for it that it fails to achieve the things it is supposed to do. Is it the case that we could manage without it entirely or do we need to replace it with something else? Has anyone quantified the relative costs of each?

I'd say MIFID I was working reasonably OK where I encounter it, so it was a classic case of bureacrats altering things to self serve their existence. Things like the 10% runs are plain stupid and show complete ignorance of what they think they are regulating.

MIFID I imposed little costs or wasted time. MIFID II imposes significant costs, lots of extra time and no benefit.

rjsterry

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

With regards to MIFID II, it is full of pointless stupidity and could be massively improved. It is hugely costly with virtually no benefit. Things like reporting 10% market falls (normal things) just encourage poor investor decisions. Itemising every single cost of investment separately is very costly and time intensive, for no benefit to the investor. Forcing annual reviews of suitability is costly and pointless for many (though not all) investors.
Just some examples.

Happy to take your word for it that it fails to achieve the things it is supposed to do. Is it the case that we could manage without it entirely or do we need to replace it with something else? Has anyone quantified the relative costs of each?

I'd say MIFID I was working reasonably OK where I encounter it, so it was a classic case of bureacrats altering things to self serve their existence. Things like the 10% runs are plain stupid and show complete ignorance of what they think they are regulating.

MIFID I imposed little costs or wasted time. MIFID II imposes significant costs, lots of extra time and no benefit.

OK, so supposing we reverted to MIFID i or something very like it, can we hazard a guess at the savings and to whom these would go, and what are the costs of changing? And how do we ensure our bureaucrats do a better job than those who wrote MIFID ii?

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

Stevo_666 said:

Stevo_666 said:

I've explained before the advantages of being able to set rules that are applicable to the UK rather than being some compromise effort to suit 20-odd countries with different circumstances and needs.

@Rick, RES and TWH: above is the nub of my original point. Do you disagree with that, and if so, why?

Here's a little reminder of my question. Just press 'show previous quotes'

It's a 'yes' or 'no' answer format. You can answer 'on balance' if you want.

If a single set of rules are required across a market in order to ensure equal standards and fair competition, then that makes sense. If a larger market is beneficial, then the rules would need to be applicable across that market. So "on balance", it's better to have rules set across the larger market. For me, that's on the basis that closer trade links generally help lead to a more lasting peace.

However, in areas where that is not the case, then good old subsidiarity should come into effect. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/subsidiarity.html

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

With regards to MIFID II, it is full of pointless stupidity and could be massively improved. It is hugely costly with virtually no benefit. Things like reporting 10% market falls (normal things) just encourage poor investor decisions. Itemising every single cost of investment separately is very costly and time intensive, for no benefit to the investor. Forcing annual reviews of suitability is costly and pointless for many (though not all) investors.
Just some examples.

Happy to take your word for it that it fails to achieve the things it is supposed to do. Is it the case that we could manage without it entirely or do we need to replace it with something else? Has anyone quantified the relative costs of each?

I'd say MIFID I was working reasonably OK where I encounter it, so it was a classic case of bureacrats altering things to self serve their existence. Things like the 10% runs are plain stupid and show complete ignorance of what they think they are regulating.

MIFID I imposed little costs or wasted time. MIFID II imposes significant costs, lots of extra time and no benefit.

OK, so supposing we reverted to MIFID i or something very like it, can we hazard a guess at the savings and to whom these would go, and what are the costs of changing? And how do we ensure our bureaucrats do a better job than those who wrote MIFID ii?

The cost of compliance with the FCA is significant. MiFID II is just more cost. A compliance officer likely earns £200k+. Just in case any kids are reading this and want to go into an exceedingly dull, well paid profession with the possibility of prison at some point to spice it up.

tailwindhome

Stevo_666 said:

Stevo_666 said:

Stevo_666 said:

I've explained before the advantages of being able to set rules that are applicable to the UK rather than being some compromise effort to suit 20-odd countries with different circumstances and needs.

@Rick, RES and TWH: above is the nub of my original point. Do you disagree with that, and if so, why?

Here's a little reminder of my question. Just press 'show previous quotes'

It's a 'yes' or 'no' answer format. You can answer 'on balance' if you want.

We should have our own rules and have our own field.

It'll be the best field, better than their field.

We will build it. They will come.

We'll walk through fields of gold.

rick_chasey

So the UK is opting out of the fast-track security checks agreement with the EU, which means a red tape bonanza.

WHHHYY

rick_chasey

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/03/08/truckers-face-paperwork-mountain-britain-opts-against-fast-track/

The Government’s no-compromise approach emerged after the first round of trade talks in Brussels last week, where British negotiators rejected participation in the EU’s “safety and security zone” despite accepting it would significantly increase border delays.

The move has caused consternation among trade groups – including hauliers, port operators and shipping companies – who were informed of the decision last week by the HMRC’s Border Delivery Group.

A source familiar with a meeting between officials and trade groups accused the Government of putting “political dogma above the economic well-being of the country”, describing an atmosphere of “total disbelief” at the Government’s refusal to heed industry advice.

“It is now pretty clear to everyone that the Government is trying to shift the blame for delays and shortages onto business,” added the source.


A note sent to trade groups last week from the Border Delivery Group confirmed that the UK “is not seeking a waiver in relation to Safety and Security declarations as part of the FTA negotiation” and would be subjecting all goods to declarations “in line with the rest of the world”.

The decision came as a blow to trade groups whose hopes for a pragmatic approach had been raised following the publication of the Government’s negotiation mandate, which had acknowledged the “practical constraints of ‘roll-on roll-off’ trade”.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

So the UK is opting out of the fast-track security checks agreement with the EU, which means a red tape bonanza.

WHHHYY

I have read two possible justifications:
(i) It was never on offer, so there was no point asking
(ii) The UK wants to avoid having anything else included with the FTA and wants everything to be done separately. This to avoid the EU trying to link things together and use that as leverage.

rick_chasey

Why wouldn't it be on offer? it's a sh!tbag for everyone, and flies entirely in the face of what the gov't was promising would happen on the border.

What happened to your self-service check out border, BB?

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Why wouldn't it be on offer? it's a sh!tbag for everyone, and flies entirely in the face of what the gov't was promising would happen on the border.

What happened to your self-service check out border, BB?

Did you confuse me with the government?

rick_chasey

No i thought it was odd you were offering up some defences for what is clearly a ridiculous position to take.

kingstongraham

How are those "Boris will be more pragmatic and screw over the hardliners" takes looking now?