Brexit View

[JohnL]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Most" EU goods will be waved through dozens of

> British ports to avoid any traffic delays if

> Britain leaves without a deal on 29 March.

>

> This must be that taking back control of our

> borders thingymajig that everyone keeps talking

> about...

Drug & people smugglers will have noticed I expect.

[Jules-and-Boo]

do you think they will stop the very stringent checks for such?

[robbin]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> diable rouge Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > "Most" EU goods will be waved through dozens of

> > British ports to avoid any traffic delays if

> > Britain leaves without a deal on 29 March.

> >

> > This must be that taking back control of our

> > borders thingymajig that everyone keeps talking

> > about...

>

> Drug & people smugglers will have noticed I

> expect.

What? Do you mean as opposed to no checks at all qua member of the customs union?

In any event, the last time I looked, HMRC did not have jurisdiction over immigration matters (as opposed to customs checks)!

[Jenny1]

I believe Grayling first articulated the 'no checks' plan in March last year. It may well have been said earlier given that it's the kind of thing that Patrick Minford is keen on. I'm happy to be corrected. It's not a good idea. It will make these fantasy 'trade deals' that Brexiters talk about even more unlikely (although I know that seems hardly possible...) and our farming and manufacturing industry will pay a heavy price.

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/03/23/grayling-s-fantasy-brexit-plan-would-make-trade-deals-imposs

[robbin]

"I believe Grayling first articulated the 'no checks' plan in March last year.... It's not a good idea. It will make these fantasy 'trade deals' that Brexiters talk about even more unlikely..."

Sorry, I don't follow. How does HMRC carrying out no checks for a temporary period of time (or any period) make other trade deals more unlikely? I may be missing something, but I don't at the moment follow your logic - in fact I can't see how the two are related.

[robbin]

What it would mean is that there is unlikely to be much disruption to any supply chains into the UK. Presumably that will come as a relief to any kanban type manufacturing operations in the UK (e.g. car manufacturers). We might not all starve to death as well, which would be nice (if a little disappointing for some of you on the EDF!).

[Jenny1]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry, I don't follow. How does HMRC carrying out

> no checks for a temporary period of time (or any

> period) make other trade deals more unlikely? I

> may be missing something, but I don't at the

> moment follow your logic - in fact I can't see how

> the two are related.

I'd thought the article made it pretty clear - but if not I'm very happy to go into the detail. Have a read first and then let me know the areas you dispute.

As to 'temporary'.....what would be the factors that meant this policy, once implemented, could stop?

As to your next post, making the case for the 'no checks' policy being a good idea because it would stop people starving. Surely we shouldn't be in the position where a choice is presented of A) Starve or B)Adopt a policy which scuppers our trade and manufacturing.....

Edited to add ....and of course farming industry.

[robbin]

It's talking about a different scenario where checks are permanently (or semi-permanently) halted. That's not what HMRC said it would do yesterday. Sky News had a lengthy article on it yesterday if you are interested.

The starvation comment was not serious! People who think there is a risk of starvation should go and seek professional help (if only to get them fitted for a nice foil hat).

[robbin]

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Robbin - you've already pointed out that any rise

> in food prices (even if fairly small, and

> hopefully temporary) will affect those on small

> incomes. Therefore it's sensible, if you have cash

> available, to stock up on non-perishable items you

> use regularly.

>

> Do also remember that there are people - like

> myself - who already have a limited diet for

> medical reasons. Some substantial surgery a few

> years back means there are a lot of foods I can't

> digest. So it's sensible to make sure I have some

> supplies of the non-freah foods that I can eat, in

> case they're suddenly less available than normal.

>

Then you obviously would be entitled (if it makes you feel more comfortable) to stock up on a few things - assuming you do it well beforehand, so as not to contribute to anti-social hoarding and self-inflicted shortages. I still don't think you would need to, but if it made you feel better that would be fair enough. People without specific conditions are different.

[Jenny1]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's talking about a different scenario where

> checks are permanently (or semi-permanently)

> halted. That's not what HMRC said it would do

> yesterday. Sky News had a lengthy article on it

> yesterday if you are interested.

>

Thanks Robbin. I'll make sure I read the Sky News article.

But as I said above I'm very sceptical about what 'temporary' would mean in this context. What factors would need to come into play before such a policy, once implemented, could be stopped? I suspect it would become semi-permanent, and therefore would have serious negative knock-on effects on UK farming, manufacturing and our capacity to do trade deals.

As to stocking up the cupboards, I'm sure you'd agree we really shouldn't be put in a position where anyone (with or without medical conditions) even has to give it a passing thought.

[JohnL]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jenny1 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Robbin - you've already pointed out that any

> rise

> > in food prices (even if fairly small, and

> > hopefully temporary) will affect those on small

> > incomes. Therefore it's sensible, if you have

> cash

> > available, to stock up on non-perishable items

> you

> > use regularly.

> >

> > Do also remember that there are people - like

> > myself - who already have a limited diet for

> > medical reasons. Some substantial surgery a few

> > years back means there are a lot of foods I

> can't

> > digest. So it's sensible to make sure I have

> some

> > supplies of the non-freah foods that I can eat,

> in

> > case they're suddenly less available than

> normal.

> >

> Then you obviously would be entitled (if it makes

> you feel more comfortable) to stock up on a few

> things - assuming you do it well beforehand, so as

> not to contribute to anti-social hoarding and

> self-inflicted shortages. I still don't think you

> would need to, but if it made you feel better that

> would be fair enough. People without specific

> conditions are different.

Why though - Why should we go through this when it hasn't happened since the war just because of some liars.

If perhaps the EU could just organise a passport for those of us that wanted dual nationality but had no connections to do so it would solve things for us.

[JohnL]

There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside. David Davis. 10 October 2016.

[keano77]

JohnL said

?...If perhaps the EU could just organise a passport for those of us that wanted dual nationality but had no connections to do so it would solve things for us.?

I?m sure if you volunteer for the proposed EU army they?d give you a right of residency at least.

[Jenny1]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL said

>

> ?...If perhaps the EU could just organise a

> passport for those of us that wanted dual

> nationality but had no connections to do so it

> would solve things for us.?

>

> I?m sure if you volunteer for the proposed EU army

> they?d give you a right of residency at least.

Sadly I don't think I, for one, would be eligible. Since the proposals are simply for greater co-operation between national armies one would first have to meet entry requirements to join the British army. My age and health issues would preclude that.

[robbin]

Jenny1 Wrote:

>

> As to stocking up the cupboards, I'm sure you'd

> agree we really shouldn't be put in a position

> where anyone (with or without medical conditions)

> even has to give it a passing thought.

I do and we are not. Everything else is down to a tin foil hat mentality.

Even if there is some slight risk of limited disruption and shortages, people should not be such snowflakes about it. It's like the antithesis of the blitz mentality. Gawd help us if we ever get into a real dangerous situation again - we would collectively be pathetic pushovers.

[robbin]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL said

>

> ?...If perhaps the EU could just organise a

> passport for those of us that wanted dual

> nationality but had no connections to do so it

> would solve things for us.?

>

> I?m sure if you volunteer for the proposed EU army

> they?d give you a right of residency at least.

Way too much hardship involved!

[Jenny1]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Even if there is some slight risk of limited

> disruption and shortages, people should not be

> such snowflakes about it.

I think on reflection, Robbin, you'll see that that's not really fair. You've already acknowledged that people on low incomes and with health conditions might well be worried about this. Why wouldn't we be? Does being vulnerable either financially or physically at a time when the machinations of politicians cause collective insecurity make you a 'snowflake'?

[robbin]

I am willing to stand corrected, but I don't recall having said that about people on low incomes. If I did, I don't think I was right, because I can't see how 'food shortages' would be worse for products which low income people would buy, rather than those on higher incomes.

As for 'collective insecurity' I think you are referring to a sort of hysteria whipped up by those that want to frighten you for their own ends. You should not be taken in by that, is what I am saying. Seemingly, you have been well and truly taken in by it though - everything seems very black and white in your Brexit view.

[robbin]

... taken in to such an extent that even though HMRC have said to avoid there being border delays for imports there will be no checks on most products, you prefer to disregard what HMRC have said will happen (surely they should know what they are going to do in a no-deal Brexit) in favour of peddling the fear of starvation and the need to bulk buy and stock up on food. If you want to be frightened that's fine, but maybe don't try to justify it on false premise?

[robbin]

By the way - if everything you have said turns out to be true by the end of May 2019 I will eat my words. I won't do it naked, or on television, or hopping down the South Bank, but I will eat my words.

[robbin]

Particularly if they are the only thing left to eat.

[keano77]

As a famous French person once said

?Let them eat cake?

(not Barnier and his ilk obviously)

(Well Austrian by birth)

[Jenny1]

Hi robbin

I made the reference to your view on people with low incomes because earlier up in the thread you acknowledged that your own perspective came from a position of relative security and prosperity when thinking about potential food price rises, and that you could appreciate that people on low incomes might not feel the same. Such price rises (hopefully small and hopefully temporary) may well occur in the event of a No-Deal Brexit as a result of a weaker pound as much as any unreliability in supply.

And as I said above I quite believe that HMRC would adopt a 'no checks' policy to try to prevent shortages in the event of No-Deal. My argument was that such a policy, while advertised as 'temporary', was likely to be 'semi-permanent', since it would be hard to envisage the change in circumstances needed to stop it once implemented. It would then have undesirable knock-ons for UK manufacturing, farming and our ability to do trade deals. Also - if there is absolutely no risk to supply chains - why would HMRC be considering such a policy? So yes - to some extent we have been given a choice between A) food shortages and B) adopting an unsustainable 'no checks' policy.

I don't think I've been taken in by anything. I'm not a person who's prone to panic. But as I said before, there's very little that my compromised insides allow me to digest - so it would be odd if I wasn't focused on making sure I had reliable access to the food I am able to eat.

I, and others like me, shouldn't even have to be thinking about this stuff. You don't have to be expecting the Zombie Apocalypse in order to be furious at this excuse of a government.

I don't think you should rule out hopping down the South Bank.... it's always good to have options.

[Jenny1]

...I should add for balance that you also don't have to be expecting the Zombie Apocalypse in order to be furious at this excuse for an opposition.

[JohnL]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL said

>

> ?...If perhaps the EU could just organise a

> passport for those of us that wanted dual

> nationality but had no connections to do so it

> would solve things for us.?

>

> I?m sure if you volunteer for the proposed EU army

> they?d give you a right of residency at least.

I'm 53 Keano77 - I'm sure they'll have me as the IT guy though, or maybe the entertainment officer :)