British MPs have chastised HMRC over further slippage in the tax collector's efforts to replace the UK's customs IT systems ahead of Brexit, and its lethargic attitude to preparing traders for a no-deal scenario. They are also less than impressed that the department had not better prepared for the government's "foreseeable" …
Relax. If the hard Brexit goes to plan, the collapse of our manufacturing industries coupled with the pound being so far down the toilet that it will be out of sight means that the UK probably won't be importing very much at all for the foreseeable future.
Happily, this means that the total failure of the customs declaration system will have a barely detectable effect.
"Relax. If the hard Brexit goes to plan, the collapse of our manufacturing industries coupled with the pound being so far down the toilet that it will be out of sight means that the UK probably won't be importing very much at all for the foreseeable future."
Not sure about that, if UK production collapses it means we'll have to import even more than we already do. It just means that the finished product needs to be imported by distributors and wholesalers instead of manufacturers importing parts.
if UK production collapses it means we'll have to import even more than we already do
Not if we don't have the money. If prices go up and jobs become less secure, people will concentrate their spending on the essentials such as food and fuel. Replace that old fridge that's starting to sound a bit clunky? Not until it breaks, and even then you look for a cheap refurbished one to see you through another year or two. Need a new bed? No, just stick a bit of foam over the mattress for now.
It kicks off a cycle, and it can be a bugger to get out of. The less money there is going round and round in the local economy, the worse it is for everyone. If too few people are buying, people lose their jobs and even less gets bought. If a big local employer goes bust, the town suffers as the local shops sell less. This is why, during 2008 and 2009, there was discussion over whether giving every adult in the country £1000 in time-limited vouchers was a better idea than printing money to give to the banks and force them to keep it as a reserve. Increase demand so that the suppliers are kept busy, so that people get to keep their jobs and the government doesn't have to spend as much on social security (and can collect more VAT).
Obviously you have not driven up the M6 anytime in the last 30 years.
You would see as you drove through the "desolation of Thatcher" that there are no working factories, Britain does not make anything anyway, apart from the odd formula 1 car, and some high end vacuum cleaners.
On a more positive note, I'm kind of looking forward to the literal tons of organizational, academic and technical papers on what happens, more specifically nuts and bolts of, when a First World nation crashes out of a trading bloc.
Sorry, I know it's not fun for the participants, though.
" when a First World nation crashes out of a trading bloc."
You mean, like when the UK pushed Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other commonwealth countries out of a free trade block when it entered the EEC?
Well, New Zealand never got over it: to this day we run around in bare feet and live in caves and think the world is a dark and dangerous place ruled by magic, esp outside of the 'shire.
Note to those who haven't studied any economics: when your currency falls through the floor, tourists flock in and your exports are in demand, esp if they are still "cheap" after the EU applies a tariff.
Danish pork will become expensive, making UK pork look like good value. We call this "import substitution".
(Incidentally, this is why the Euro is proper-fucking the PIIGS: they can't trade their way out of a slump, because their currency can't fall...)
>You mean, like when the UK pushed Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other commonwealth countries out of a free trade block when it entered the EEC?
I thought the UK effectively left the Commonwealth trade block. Now I appreciate that many members of the Commonwealth trade block suffered because of many of the trade flows involved the UK, but that is different to being 'pushed'.
I suspect many of the problems with the Euro will be solved by the EU becoming a fully fledged state. However, ignoring the UK, I suspect there are many in the EU27 who would not be happy with this change, so it won't happen anytime soon. Thus the "ever closer union" remains an aspiration that won't be realised on the ground anytime soon...
In all fairness, I would say that's Theresa May's fault for issuing Article 50 before getting any sort of national agreement on what we wanted out of Brexit. HMRC was never going to get their systems sorted out in time anyway, and they've been given ridiculous deadlines and a moving target.
Then again, Farage, Gove, Johnson et al were amongst those calling for A50 to be issued ASAP, not to mention doing their level best to bugger up any attempt at agreement which didn't suit their immediate personal benefit, and sod everyone else. Fuck them. Fuck 'em, fuck 'em, fuck 'em. They've got a lot to answer for. There's a vast gulf of guilt between malice and incompetence.
>She did, however, end her letter by emphasising that the committee was aware of the scale of the challenge.
Given the nature of their repeated complaints about the progress, HMRC are making, I suspect they don't really appreciate the scale of the challenge. I recommend the PAC take a day trip (or two) and familiarise themselves with the scale of the systems and the changes they are wanting to be effected in such short timecales.
Iain Duncan Smith - The Telegraph 28 March 2017
"“Let us leave and then the Conservative Party at the next election needs to say, ‘we can reduce the cost on business and on individuals by reducing regulations which will improve our competitiveness, our productivity and therefore ultimately our economy.'"
Reality: HMRC planning for eventuality that an additional 100,000 small businesses will need to submit four to five times as many customs documents as are currently processed.
‘we can reduce the cost on business and on individuals by reducing regulations which will improve our competitiveness, our productivity and therefore ultimately our economy.'
What IDS meant to say was, "we can bin large chunks of employment law, and as a result, push down wages.", but for some reason his mouth said something different...
He certainly wasn't talking about binning the red tape relating to meeting european and international standards for products and processes, because then we wouldn't be able to sell anything abroad...
The whole thing reveals the oxymoronic approach of many politicians to IT systems. They love to play down the complexity of real life – any extra work after leaving the customs union is a bit like Christmas post and solvable by employing a few minimum wage grunts, while at the same time handing out contracts for poorly specified and horrifically complex systems to the usual suspects. Because, obviously a system that can handle VAT can also workout whether the driver is potentially and illegal immigrant.
The magic technology that can, somehow prevent queues by magically telling the border guards that the drivers and any occupants of the containers are allowed into or out of the country.
(The continued "Well, Switzerland does it" from our politicians conveniently forgets that Switzerland is a member of the Schengen agreement - meaning they have more freedom of movement than we currently have)
Nobody still knows what customs arrangements we will have if / when brexit occurs, despite blundering brexiteers saying negotiations would be a doddle, when they actually tried they did sweet FA for ages then ran away frit (stares at D Davis)
Even if there had been competent negotiations, given track record of gov IT projects (ranging from total clustur**** to merely shambolic) then anyone with a room temperature IQ would have bet money on HMRC new IT systems running late / or bodged on time release of unfinished product (and so having major showstopper bugs)
Theres blame in HMRC IT team, but also blame in the whole brevity timetable which was way too fast - anyone with a clue would have devised contingency plans for various outcomes, ensured systems were in place and then declared A50.
Instead the jingoistic racists* just wanted to exit ASAP.
* and the non racist easily deluded s who believed the lies about a fantasy world of better economic prospects outside the EU, a well funded NHS (hint, lots of high up MPs are cozy with companies that would benefit from privatized NHS, only way they will pump in lots of cash is if said cash mainly goes to their business mates rather than on real patient needs)
Instead the jingoistic racists* just wanted to exit ASAP. * and the non racist easily deluded
Don't forget those of us who didn't think it was easy, didn't expect government to be competent*, and accepted that there would be a cost, but concluded that we didn't want to be dragged further into the ever-more centralised single state of Greater Europe? But feel free to draw up some insulting caricatures, then conduct an ad hominem attack against your own strawman, and conclude by proclaiming that you have the moral high ground. If that's the intellectual depth of the Remain argument, you're not really going to change anybody's mind, are you?
* I didn't expect them to be competent, but by jove, they've done us proud in terms of their reckless, serial, fuckwitted incompetence.
"I accept not all Brexiteers are racists, but I also accept all racists are Brexiteers..."
Then you're completely wrong.
Assuming (no evidence to support this, but it's a reasonable hypothesis) that most people that voted for Brexit agreed with the ideals put out at the time of the referendum, and which have been repeated continuously since then, Brexiteers voted to leave the single market and so end free movement.
It is, in fact, remain orthodoxy that everyone that voted in favour of leave did so because they wanted to leave the single market and thus end free movement.
Ending free movement means that immigrants from the EU are treated the same as immigrants from non-EU countries.
Remain voters voted to stay in the single market and thus keep free movement of people for EU citizens, which does not apply to non-EU citizens.
Free movement is taken to be a good thing, thus the single market gives a benefit to EU citizens that is specifically and deliberately denied to non-EU citizens.
Thus Remain voters have voted for a discriminatory policy (discriminating on the basis of nationality). This is clearly undeniable.
However, the bulk of the EU population are (again, no evidence offered, since I consider it self evident) white and Christian (by culture if not by observation).
The bulk of the world's non-EU population are non white and non-Christian.
Supporters of free movement are therefore, in effect, discriminating on the basis of race, since they support a policy that discriminates in favour of a majority white population, and against a majority non-white population.
Opponents of free movement (Brexiteers) are seeking to remove a mechanism that permits discrimination on the basis of race.
The continued repeat of the lie that brexiteer = racist = brexiteer merely proves to those of us that were not too fussed one way or the other about the EU that it's the hard core remainers that are the bigots.
no evidence to support this, but it's a reasonable hypothesis
It isn't and your arguments cherry pick their strawmen. After the referendum no one bothered to do the necessary consultation with the electorate to work out what it actually wanted outside the platitudes of "taking back control", "no more foreigners" or "more money for the NHS". Instead we got even more meaningless platitudes like "Brexit means Brexit" and time was wasted with value-signalling instead of serious political debate.
But to return to your hypothesis: in 2016 the refugee crisis of 2015 was still fresh in the minds of many, as was the fear of mass migration from the Middle East (UKIP even had a poster suggesting millions of Turks were just waiting to come to the UK) and Africa, ie. migrants from outside the EU. For many the EU was, and remains, too abstract a concept but they were angry about their standard of living and apprehensive about the future and the referendum gave them a way to express their anger and apprehension, however vaguely.
Not disputing any of your points (and I certainly agree that time was wasted in the aftermath of the referendum), but none prove all brexiteers = racists or all racists = brexiteers.
Nor does your post dispute that free movement is discriminatory (which it plainly is on the basis of nationality), or that such discrimination on the basis of nationality amounts in effect to discrimination on the basis of race.
Hence you do not address the fact that people that supported remain were supporting membership of the single market and free movement (for EU citizens) and were thus supporting a racist policy (in effect, if not in design).
It wasn't clear in my first post that I was trying to show that all who voted for remain were voting for a racist policy, but this does not by any means mean that all who voted remain are racist - I do not believe that and would view such an accusation as a dishonest smear. Just as I view the brexiteer = racist = brexiteer claim to be a dishonest smear.
17.4 million people voted to leave, and they did so for 17.4 million individual and likely high complex, reasons. Some will have been racist, and some won't be, just like some remain voters were racist and some won't be.
"Thus Remain voters have voted for a discriminatory policy (discriminating on the basis of nationality). This is clearly undeniable"
I'll keep this short, clean and in parlance that your average gammon voter can understand:
Blowing smoke to cover their team's xenophobia. Hilarious.
> Assuming (no evidence to support this, but it's a reasonable hypothesis) that most people that voted for Brexit agreed with the ideals put out at the time of the referendum, and which have been repeated continuously since then, Brexiteers voted to leave the single market and so end free movement.
I'd say your very first assumption is incorrect, and therefore invalidates the rest of your argument.
Many prominent brexiteers said that brexit didn't mean leaving the single market:
Daniel Hannan: "Nobody is talking about leaving the Single Market"
Farage: "Wouldn't it be awful to be like Norway?" (i.e. proposing that we would in fact be like Norway, who are in the Single Market)
Also, your argument is based on people following the logical conclusion of their thinking. Most people don't do that, most of the time.
Don't forget those of us who didn't think it was easy
I don't think he did. Still, it was a naive position to adopt considering how close proceedings have been to some of our predictions, starting with the inability to provide a coherent interpretation of the referendum before officially requesting to leave.
you're not really going to change anybody's mind, are you
Over something so fundamentally ideological that was never likely to happen, was it? Statements like ever-more centralised single state of Greater Europe are hardly likely to bring pro-Europeans like myself round either.
You're quite right, he did miss out "fantasist".
Nobody's going to argue that there are no federalists in the EU, but to loudly proclaim that the EU is an "ever more centralised single state of Greater Europe" belies a total disconnect with what is actually going on in European politics.
Of course, if UK.gov doesn't come to its senses and abort brextastrophe* before it is too late, that will still leave 27 sovereign states with their own vetoes on any federalist proposals, which is why none of them ever go anywhere when they do pop up. I can't imagine Italy, or Hungary, or for that matter, even Germany going along with such stuff, because: it's fantasy, and those who seriously believe it are, by definition fantasists.
*lets face it, we've got enough stupid portmanteau words to do with leaving the EU, one more isn't going to hurt now, is it?
I can't imagine Italy, or Hungary, or for that matter, even Germany going along with such stuff, because: it's fantasy
For the record, the most recent example of QMV ("qualified majority voting") — over refugee quotas — was a massive own goal that highlighted the key problem with modern politics: the failure to engage sincerely with the electorate and thus ceding ground to the populists.
Like a suspect in a police station signing a blank confession form and letting the cop behind the desk fill in the details. *
*I know, IRL no one would be so cretinously stupid to do such a thing. Except that is exactly what Leave voters did.
>Instead the jingoistic racists* just wanted to exit ASAP.
It seems France is coming to the conclusion that a no deal Brexit aka UK exit ASAP on 29-Mar-2019 is actually in it's interest. It only needa a couple of EU members to think similarly and a no-deal Brexit is what it will be.
The (ironic) laugh will be watching the Brexiteers complaining that a no-deal Brexit is the EU 'punishing' the UK.
But now the work is under increased pressure to meet the tighter deadline and to handle a surge in declarations – this could rise from 55 million to as much as 255 million after Brexit.
No, it won't rise like that. That figure assumes there will still be solvent businesses in the former UK wanting to import or export. Bar the drug smugglers and small-arms dealers (have to protect my stash of baked beans and long-life hummous).
So no need to rush guys.
"They are also less than impressed that the department had not better prepared for the government's "foreseeable" decision to introduce postponed accounting for import VAT."
So, following this, I understand politicians, not only fucked up but also, rather than trying to convince the UK gov. to have a deal, are loosing their time asking why civil services had not anticipated their incompetence and failure ?
Or am I not reading this correctly ?
They're working for Putin. And they're doing a fine job. Sowing mistrust and despondency better than any of his social media campaigns ever could.
Pretending to be bitter about GRU assassination attempts on British soil all adds to their credibility - no one would ever suspect who their real master is.
We've got nothing to prepare for here; we'll just carry on with our heads held high like we always do. It's Johnny Foreigner I feel for... I can already hear the sounds of gallic panic and teutonic fear, as Pierre and Fritz wonder how on earth they'll survive without us propping their ailing economies (all built on onions and sausages) up. They don't like it up 'em. You mark my words! They don't like it up 'em.
(c) 2018, Daily Mail
Which most people would have considered a good reason not to vole Leave, as it multiplies the clusterf**kness of the decision.
Of course if your a contractor you may think "More coin for me as the chaos increases."
It's looking more like the Leave voters split into basically 2 groups
1)Those who wanted to express some kind of temper tantrum at the government (they'd have done better calling the Home Office to account for the numerous management f**kups that are the main root causes of this situation) with a massive parambulator pacifier ejection event.
2)Those with assets who expect to make a killing through investments and are wealthy enough to be insulated from the direct consequences and feel its a case of "Head I win, tails I win."
@ John Smith 19
"Which most people would have considered a good reason not to vole Leave, as it multiplies the clusterf**kness of the decision."
If thats how they think it is a little disjointed. If people wont leave the EU because our government did something bad then where to they go with the EU in multiple self inflicted crises? Or simply how does putting a crap gov above our crap gov fix anything? It can make it worse but how can it help?
"Of course if your a contractor you may think "More coin for me as the chaos increases.""
I assume that is the attempted counter to the pork barrel supporters of the EU?
I'd say repeating the same thing over and over again won't change peoples minds but the success of "Taking back control" proves that to be a lie.
Still at least I know what that noise I've been hearing is at last.
It's the sound of Joseph Goebbels ROTFLHFAO as he cackles "The Big Lie, Ja. The Big Lie"
I do hope you enjoy getting exactly what you voted for.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019