I still think the nomenclature of hard and soft is less than useful. If, for example, we are outside the single market but have tariff free access to it with acceptance of cross regulation in things like financial services is that hard or soft?
Tariffs are not the issue.
Every day, hundreds of trucks filled with car parts enter the UK and deliver them to car plants. If there is an accident on the motorway, there is a danger the production lines will halt.
Imagine instead they are stopped at Dover while the contents of every truck are checked for point of origin.
Industry relies on free movement of goods within the single market. That's the issue
Exactly. And even for less 'just in time' industries it would add delays which all cost money.
Can we foresee empty supermarkets if lorries from the continent are delayed? The 'big four', Tesco/Asda/Morrisons/Sainsbury's, specialise in not holding stocks. They outsource storage costs to their suppliers and blame them if goods don't arrive on time.
The govt would undoubtedly capitulate and order officials to stop or tone down the inspections.
Even with everything running smoothly, supermarkets run on the basis that occasional random shortages save them money vs. having everything 100% in stock at all times. It's an incredibly fragile setup.
So that would be none then. Simple prejudice. Our biggest trading partner is the US. We don't have a trade agreement with them but manage to sell and buy billions of pounds worth of goods a year. Can you point to a single occasion when the delivery of items at either end has been seriously inhibited? Surely, in the real world, there must be hundreds of examples to choose from.
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Indeed, I said to JohnO on Thursday would you be happy with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell being given these powers?
If it isn't good enough for those two, then it isn't good enough for any government.
No, of course not. But that's just an excuse by those with an anti-Brexit agenda to try and win Conservatives round to stop Brexit.
A better answer is: how do Conservatives argue the positive case for Conservative values in the 21st Century, and intellectually defeat socialism again?
We are the good guys. We must show people we are, not assume they'll work it out for themselves.
'We are the good guys'. You may think that -others take a different view and consider many Tories to be pure evil The 'Hang Mandela' crowd come to mind. Beyond that many people think of Thatcher as the Anti-Christ.
And why do you think that that paperwork will slow down delivery?
Paperwork always slows down delivery.
And of course it's not just paperwork.
And your evidence for that would be?
You have to understand that people who live in countries that aren't part of the EU are on the brink of starvation, roasting bits of dog and cat over open braziers.
So that would be none then. Simple prejudice. Our biggest trading partner is the US. We don't have a trade agreement with them but manage to sell and buy billions of pounds worth of goods a year. Can you point to a single occasion when the delivery of items at either end has been seriously inhibited? Surely, in the real world, there must be hundreds of examples to choose from.
Sure.
I work for a US company. We shipped 2 pieces of equipment, manufactured in the US, to South America.
They were held up in customs.
For 6 months.
It's just paperwork...
And after 6 months, they allowed 1 item in, and shipped the other back to the US.
But it's just paperwork.
Paperwork slows down everything. if you claim otherwise, you're wrong. Or a liar.
That's why the UK have invested decades of effort in removing non-tariff barriers. To claim that introducing them will have no impact is naive, or stupid.
You have to understand that people who live in countries that aren't part of the EU are on the brink of starvation, roasting bits of dog and cat over open braziers.
And why do you think that that paperwork will slow down delivery?
Paperwork always slows down delivery.
And of course it's not just paperwork.
And your evidence for that would be?
You have to understand that people who live in countries that aren't part of the EU are on the brink of starvation, roasting bits of dog and cat over open braziers.
You're right, I should have taken that into account.
So that would be none then. Simple prejudice. Our biggest trading partner is the US. We don't have a trade agreement with them but manage to sell and buy billions of pounds worth of goods a year. Can you point to a single occasion when the delivery of items at either end has been seriously inhibited? Surely, in the real world, there must be hundreds of examples to choose from.
Sure.
I work for a US company. We shipped 2 pieces of equipment, manufactured in the US, to South America.
They were held up in customs.
For 6 months.
It's just paperwork...
And after 6 months, they allowed 1 item in, and shipped the other back to the US.
But it's just paperwork.
Paperwork slows down everything. if you claim otherwise, you're wrong. Or a liar.
That's why the UK have invested decades of effort in removing non-tariff barriers. To claim that introducing them will have no impact is naive, or stupid.
So that wouldn't be trade between us and the US then? What do you think our trade is most likely to be like with the EU? The US or South America?
So that would be none then. Simple prejudice. Our biggest trading partner is the US. We don't have a trade agreement with them but manage to sell and buy billions of pounds worth of goods a year. Can you point to a single occasion when the delivery of items at either end has been seriously inhibited? Surely, in the real world, there must be hundreds of examples to choose from.
Sure.
I work for a US company. We shipped 2 pieces of equipment, manufactured in the US, to South America.
They were held up in customs.
For 6 months.
It's just paperwork...
And after 6 months, they allowed 1 item in, and shipped the other back to the US.
But it's just paperwork.
Paperwork slows down everything. if you claim otherwise, you're wrong. Or a liar.
That's why the UK have invested decades of effort in removing non-tariff barriers. To claim that introducing them will have no impact is naive, or stupid.
You've spent 12 months getting ever more hysterical about minor things. I don't know how you'd cope if something actually went wrong in your life.
So that wouldn't be trade between us and the US then? What do you think our trade is most likely to be like with the EU? The US or South America?
The who it's with is irrelevant. Are there non-tarrif barriers in place or not? And it is unquestionably easier to trade with the EU from the UK than the US.
If you want a more personal example, try buying stuff from the US on Ebay.
Ebay operates a Global shipping program, where they handle all of the import duties, so there are no non-tariff barriers to you, the consumer.
Not every seller participates though.
Buy something from a seller who participates, and one who doesn't, see which arrives first, see which one requires more paperwork, then stop claiming non-tariff barriers have no impact.
I disagree with several aspects of Blair's centrism but Corbynistas dislike centrism in general, not just merely the politics of Tony Blair.
Not exactly, in most cases. What we object to is the complete dominance of managerialism - "what works". There is nothing wrong with that as an everyday principle - like rcs, I can perfectly well imagine that there are different successful ways to run a railway, and we should look at what works best. But a leftish party should have an overall objective of redressing the natural drift of power, wealth and opportunity to those who already have it.
As a generally loyal Blairite I came to feel that we had lost that sense of purpose and that, apart from personal liking, is what appeals to me about Corbyn and McDonnell. One can never predict what will turn up in government, but if there is, for example, a new refugee crisis, I absolutely trust Corbyn to put the interests of refugees first, without first consulting a focus group to see how it might play with the public. If money is to be raised, I absolutely trust them to raise it primasrily from better-off people like me. I'm pleasantly surprised to find they make all this quite popular too.
With Tony, although I still do respect him and I think Iraq was a harder call than is now generally believed, I never felt any certainty about anything except his general theme of private provision of public service, which is actually not always a "what works" doctrine at all. And with the Tories, I have no idea what they really want, except to stay in power. Which doesn't make me hate the Tories or Tony, but I don't see that they have much to offer anyone at the moment.
Interesting, Nick.
As regards Tony, I think one of the reasons his stock has fallen so low is that he has refused to accept Iraq was a mistake. Even now, I think if he showed more contrition, then people might be more forgiving. He has been remarkably unrepentant, even intransigent.
As you describe yourself as "a generally loyal Blairite", I'd be interested in your views as to University tuition fees now. You clearly voted for them in your days as an MP. Do you regret that now?
I disagree with several aspects of Blair's centrism but Corbynistas dislike centrism in general, not just merely the politics of Tony Blair.
Not exactly, in most cases. What we object to is the complete dominance of managerialism - "what works". There is nothing wrong with that as an everyday principle - like rcs, I can perfectly well imagine that there are different successful ways to run a railway, and we should look at what works best. But a leftish party should have an overall objective of redressing the natural drift of power, wealth and opportunity to those who already have it.
As a generally loyal Blairite I came to feel that we had lost that sense of purpose and that, apart from personal liking, is what appeals to me about Corbyn and McDonnell. One can never predict what will turn up in government, but if there is, for example, a new refugee crisis, I absolutely trust Corbyn to put the interests of refugees first, without first consulting a focus group to see how it might play with the public. If money is to be raised, I absolutely trust them to raise it primasrily from better-off people like me. I'm pleasantly surprised to find they make all this quite popular too.
With Tony, although I still do respect him and I think Iraq was a harder call than is now generally believed, I never felt any certainty about anything except his general theme of private provision of public service, which is actually not always a "what works" doctrine at all. And with the Tories, I have no idea what they really want, except to stay in power. Which doesn't make me hate the Tories or Tony, but I don't see that they have much to offer anyone at the moment.
I joined the Lib Dems in 2001 when Blair was in his pre-Iraq pomp. At the time I viewed Blair as an unprincipled managerialist and disliked him intensely. Towards the end of his term I actually started to feel sorry for him and post-Brexit I'm starting to like him a little bit!
I agree that left of centre parties should have some kind of ideological underpinning. To my now more charitable mind, parts of the Blairite agenda feel like he was fumbling towards a more coherent liberal stance. I think that it's a shame for the UK that Blair's successors didn't attempt to push on towards the Orange Book liberalism that Blairism could have easily become.
As for Corbyn, obviously his ideals aren't mine, but I'm not convinced that he's quite as purely idealistic as you paint him to be. The stance that Labour has taken on tuition fees seems like quite a grubby piece of political positioning to me and certainly not a policy that can be squared with progressive, redistributive politics.
And why do you think that that paperwork will slow down delivery?
Paperwork always slows down delivery.
And of course it's not just paperwork.
And your evidence for that would be?
You have to understand that people who live in countries that aren't part of the EU are on the brink of starvation, roasting bits of dog and cat over open braziers.
That's the sort of answer that makes me believe Brexit won't happen. Nearly all the sharpest minds are currently against it and if those few that are for it are reduced to talking gobledygook then the game is surely over.
Mr. B, yeah, after some strategy errors early on, Mercedes have mostly gotten over that sort of thing. I wouldn't mind if Hamilton got a penalty. Especially if it meant a full pay out on Raikkonen (it won't, but a man can dream).
I just hope they make their minds up quickly on the penalty.
So that would be none then. Simple prejudice. Our biggest trading partner is the US. We don't have a trade agreement with them but manage to sell and buy billions of pounds worth of goods a year. Can you point to a single occasion when the delivery of items at either end has been seriously inhibited? Surely, in the real world, there must be hundreds of examples to choose from.
We do have a trade agreement with the US. There are nine separate treaties covering EU-US trade, covering rules or origin, double taxation, mutual recognition of standards, etc.
I don't actually worry that much about us leaving the EU without a deal, because they need one every bit as much as we do. I do worry that we're failing to replicate any of the EU's existing agreements.
I disagree with several aspects of Blair's centrism but Corbynistas dislike centrism in general, not just merely the politics of Tony Blair.
Not exactly, in most cases. What we object to is the complete dominance of managerialism - "what works". There is nothing wrong with that as an everyday principle - like rcs, I can perfectly well imagine that there are different successful ways to run a railway, and we should look at what works best. But a leftish party should have an overall objective of redressing the natural drift of power, wealth and opportunity to those who already have it.
As a generally loyal Blairite I came to feel that we had lost that sense of purpose and that, apart from personal liking, is what appeals to me about Corbyn and McDonnell. One can never predict what will turn up in government, but if there is, for example, a new refugee crisis, I absolutely trust Corbyn to put the interests of refugees first, without first consulting a focus group to see how it might play with the public. If money is to be raised, I absolutely trust them to raise it primasrily from better-off people like me. I'm pleasantly surprised to find they make all this quite popular too.
With Tony, although I still do respect him and I think Iraq was a harder call than is now generally believed, I never felt any certainty about anything except his general theme of private provision of public service, which is actually not always a "what works" doctrine at all. And with the Tories, I have no idea what they really want, except to stay in power. Which doesn't make me hate the Tories or Tony, but I don't see that they have much to offer anyone at the moment.
I joined the Lib Dems in 2001 when Blair was in his pre-Iraq pomp. At the time I viewed Blair as an unprincipled managerialist and disliked him intensely. Towards the end of his term I actually started to feel sorry for him and post-Brexit I'm starting to like him a little bit!
I agree that left of centre parties should have some kind of ideological underpinning. To my now more charitable mind, parts of the Blairite agenda feel like he was fumbling towards a more coherent liberal stance. I think that it's a shame for the UK that Blair's successors didn't attempt to push on towards the Orange Book liberalism that Blairism could have easily become.
As for Corbyn, obviously his ideals aren't mine, but I'm not convinced that he's quite as purely idealistic as you paint him to be. The stance that Labour has taken on tuition fees seems like quite a grubby piece of political positioning to me and certainly not a policy that can be squared with progressive, redistributive politics.
I would only consider forgiving Blair if he were to serve his sentence in the same way as Albert Speer et al.
So that would be none then. Simple prejudice. Our biggest trading partner is the US. We don't have a trade agreement with them but manage to sell and buy billions of pounds worth of goods a year. Can you point to a single occasion when the delivery of items at either end has been seriously inhibited? Surely, in the real world, there must be hundreds of examples to choose from.
We do have a trade agreement with the US. There are nine separate treaties covering EU-US trade, covering rules or origin, double taxation, mutual recognition of standards, etc.
I don't actually worry that much about us leaving the EU without a deal, because they need one every bit as much as we do. I do worry that we're failing to replicate any of the EU's existing agreements.
I agree that should be a priority. Much more important than having Fox wandering around the world trying to find new agreements. But I suppose anything that keeps Fox from anything important is good....
So that would be none then. Simple prejudice. Our biggest trading partner is the US. We don't have a trade agreement with them but manage to sell and buy billions of pounds worth of goods a year. Can you point to a single occasion when the delivery of items at either end has been seriously inhibited? Surely, in the real world, there must be hundreds of examples to choose from.
Sure.
I work for a US company. We shipped 2 pieces of equipment, manufactured in the US, to South America.
They were held up in customs.
For 6 months.
It's just paperwork...
And after 6 months, they allowed 1 item in, and shipped the other back to the US.
But it's just paperwork.
Paperwork slows down everything. if you claim otherwise, you're wrong. Or a liar.
That's why the UK have invested decades of effort in removing non-tariff barriers. To claim that introducing them will have no impact is naive, or stupid.
So that wouldn't be trade between us and the US then? What do you think our trade is most likely to be like with the EU? The US or South America?
From 1995 to 2012 I provided services throughout Europe. It was seamless. I had to bill Microsoft in the States; it was an utter nightmare; all sort of ridiculous hoops that I had to jump through. Prior to that (91 - 92 I think) I twice took goods into France that I was also taking out again (exhibition stuff). Again a nightmare. Ended up with French customs shrugging shoulders and ushering me on my way even though I had the proper carnet. I also needed to get an oscilloscope into Cyprus urgently and didn't see it for weeks while it was being held by customs.
Not sure people appreciate the current situation benefits.
I disagree with several aspects of Blair's centrism but Corbynistas dislike centrism in general, not just merely the politics of Tony Blair.
As a generally loyal Blairite I came to feel that we had lost that sense of purpose and that, apart from personal liking, is what appeals to me about Corbyn and McDonnell. One can never predict what will turn up in government, but if there is, for example, a new refugee crisis, I absolutely trust Corbyn to put the interests of refugees first, without first consulting a focus group to see how it might play with the public. If money is to be raised, I absolutely trust them to raise it primasrily from better-off people like me. I'm pleasantly surprised to find they make all this quite popular too.
With Tony, although I still do respect him and I think Iraq was a harder call than is now generally believed, I never felt any certainty about anything except his general theme of private provision of public service, which is actually not always a "what works" doctrine at all. And with the Tories, I have no idea what they really want, except to stay in power. Which doesn't make me hate the Tories or Tony, but I don't see that they have much to offer anyone at the moment.
I joined the Lib Dems in 2001 when Blair was in his pre-Iraq pomp. At the time I viewed Blair as an unprincipled managerialist and disliked him intensely. Towards the end of his term I actually started to feel sorry for him and post-Brexit I'm starting to like him a little bit!
I agree that left of centre parties should have some kind of ideological underpinning. To my now more charitable mind, parts of the Blairite agenda feel like he was fumbling towards a more coherent liberal stance. I think that it's a shame for the UK that Blair's successors didn't attempt to push on towards the Orange Book liberalism that Blairism could have easily become.
As for Corbyn, obviously his ideals aren't mine, but I'm not convinced that he's quite as purely idealistic as you paint him to be. The stance that Labour has taken on tuition fees seems like quite a grubby piece of political positioning to me and certainly not a policy that can be squared with progressive, redistributive politics.
I would only consider forgiving Blair if he were to serve his sentence in the same way as Albert Speer et al.
Wouldn't he need to be sentenced first? And prior to that, charged with something and then found guilty. Unless you are trying to be funny (in which case, your humour is completely lost on me) your comment is ridiculous!
So that would be none then. Simple prejudice. Our biggest trading partner is the US. We don't have a trade agreement with them but manage to sell and buy billions of pounds worth of goods a year. Can you point to a single occasion when the delivery of items at either end has been seriously inhibited? Surely, in the real world, there must be hundreds of examples to choose from.
Sure.
I work for a US company. We shipped 2 pieces of equipment, manufactured in the US, to South America.
They were held up in customs.
For 6 months.
It's just paperwork...
And after 6 months, they allowed 1 item in, and shipped the other back to the US.
But it's just paperwork.
Paperwork slows down everything. if you claim otherwise, you're wrong. Or a liar.
That's why the UK have invested decades of effort in removing non-tariff barriers. To claim that introducing them will have no impact is naive, or stupid.
So that wouldn't be trade between us and the US then? What do you think our trade is most likely to be like with the EU? The US or South America?
From 1995 to 2012 I provided services throughout Europe. It was seamless. I had to bill Microsoft in the States; it was an utter nightmare; all sort of ridiculous hoops that I had to jump through. Prior to that (91 - 92 I think) I twice took goods into France that I was also taking out again (exhibition stuff). Again a nightmare. Ended up with French customs shrugging shoulders and ushering me on my way even though I had the proper carnet. I also needed to get an oscilloscope into Cyprus urgently and didn't see it for weeks while it was being held by customs.
Not sure people appreciate the current situation benefits.
Very illuminating examples. You are right though, most of us haven't a clue about such things as it never touches our lives directly... but we will feel the effects indirectly. Let's hope that, even at this stage, some level of common sense prevails.
Mr. B, yeah, after some strategy errors early on, Mercedes have mostly gotten over that sort of thing. I wouldn't mind if Hamilton got a penalty. Especially if it meant a full pay out on Raikkonen (it won't, but a man can dream).
I just hope they make their minds up quickly on the penalty.
No action confirmed by stewards - a relief as I'm backing him for pole & win this weekend. Sorry about your foiled Raikkonen bonanza, though.
So that would be none then. Simple prejudice. Our biggest trading partner is the US. We don't have a trade agreement with them but manage to sell and buy billions of pounds worth of goods a year. Can you point to a single occasion when the delivery of items at either end has been seriously inhibited? Surely, in the real world, there must be hundreds of examples to choose from.
Sure.
I work for a US company. We shipped 2 pieces of equipment, manufactured in the US, to South America.
They were held up in customs.
For 6 months.
It's just paperwork...
And after 6 months, they allowed 1 item in, and shipped the other back to the US.
But it's just paperwork.
Paperwork slows down everything. if you claim otherwise, you're wrong. Or a liar.
That's why the UK have invested decades of effort in removing non-tariff barriers. To claim that introducing them will have no impact is naive, or stupid.
So that wouldn't be trade between us and the US then? What do you think our trade is most likely to be like with the EU? The US or South America?
From 1995 to 2012 I provided services throughout Europe. It was seamless. I had to bill Microsoft in the States; it was an utter nightmare; all sort of ridiculous hoops that I had to jump through. Prior to that (91 - 92 I think) I twice took goods into France that I was also taking out again (exhibition stuff). Again a nightmare. Ended up with French customs shrugging shoulders and ushering me on my way even though I had the proper carnet. I also needed to get an oscilloscope into Cyprus urgently and didn't see it for weeks while it was being held by customs.
Not sure people appreciate the current situation benefits.
So let's go back to an economic trading area and cut out all the political sh*t.
Good luck and have a great day to anynPBers going to Silverstone, Trent Bridge, Wimbledon, Fairford, Beaulieu or one of the many other events on today around the country - I do miss England in the summer sometimes.
I won't be keeping up with any of the events either, as today's Mrs Sandpit's birthday so more important things take priority!
Just getting on with it is not an option. The best choice for our economy and for living standards involves creating a huge split in the Conservative party. And, as we know, the Tories always put party before country (and, of course, self before party).
No, it doesn't.
Corbyn's Labour would be an absolute, utter disaster.
May's Conservatives are already an absolute, utter disaster.
The choice is between strychnine and cyanide.
Don't be so negative - it's quite possible you'll get to try both in succession. Which is not something you'd experience with strychnine and cyanide.
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Indeed, I said to JohnO on Thursday would you be happy with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell being given these powers?
If it isn't good enough for those two, then it isn't good enough for any government.
No, of course not. But that's just an excuse by those with an anti-Brexit agenda to try and win Conservatives round to stop Brexit.
A better answer is: how do Conservatives argue the positive case for Conservative values in the 21st Century, and intellectually defeat socialism again?
We are the good guys. We must show people we are, not assume they'll work it out for themselves.
You (or they) could have started by trusting the people and their elected officials rather than looking at any authority outside of London with deep suspicion. I can see no reason at all why fisheries and agriculture should not be devolved, nor why the return of a huge swathe of powers from Brussels should not be used as an opportunity to strengthen local government. Instead it is pulling yet more power into the executive.
Is this a reason to stop Brexit? Of course not. But it is disappointing that the Tories have proved themselves so parochial (in the narrow minded sense) when it comes to the distribution of power across the nation.
They've said they plan to devolve fisheries. Don't know on agriculture.
This really is just a process question with a 2 year sunset clause. It's not ideal but doesn't create a precedent
I still think the nomenclature of hard and soft is less than useful. If, for example, we are outside the single market but have tariff free access to it with acceptance of cross regulation in things like financial services is that hard or soft?
Tariffs are not the issue.
Every day, hundreds of trucks filled with car parts enter the UK and deliver them to car plants. If there is an accident on the motorway, there is a danger the production lines will halt.
Imagine instead they are stopped at Dover while the contents of every truck are checked for point of origin.
Industry relies on free movement of goods within the single market. That's the issue
Exactly. And even for less 'just in time' industries it would add delays which all cost money.
And why do you think that that paperwork will slow down delivery? Isn't there this thing called the internet? We trade quite happily with countries not in the single market right now. I think these concerns are being seriously exaggerated.
Because my day job sometimes is literally helping companies from outside the EU get goods into it. You are right that that it is perfectly possible to trade from outside, but there will be more obstacles and some deals that work now won't work in the future. Leaving the single market would be crazy and I really hope we don't.
So that would be none then. Simple prejudice. Our biggest trading partner is the US. We don't have a trade agreement with them but manage to sell and buy billions of pounds worth of goods a year. Can you point to a single occasion when the delivery of items at either end has been seriously inhibited? Surely, in the real world, there must be hundreds of examples to choose from.
Sure.
I work for a US company. We shipped 2 pieces of equipment, manufactured in the US, to South America.
They were held up in customs.
For 6 months.
It's just paperwork...
And after 6 months, they allowed 1 item in, and shipped the other back to the US.
But it's just paperwork.
Paperwork slows down everything. if you claim otherwise, you're wrong. Or a liar.
That's why the UK have invested decades of effort in removing non-tariff barriers. To claim that introducing them will have no impact is naive, or stupid.
So that wouldn't be trade between us and the US then? What do you think our trade is most likely to be like with the EU? The US or South America?
From 1995 to 2012 I provided services throughout Europe. It was seamless. I had to bill Microsoft in the States; it was an utter nightmare; all sort of ridiculous hoops that I had to jump through. Prior to that (91 - 92 I think) I twice took goods into France that I was also taking out again (exhibition stuff). Again a nightmare. Ended up with French customs shrugging shoulders and ushering me on my way even though I had the proper carnet. I also needed to get an oscilloscope into Cyprus urgently and didn't see it for weeks while it was being held by customs.
Not sure people appreciate the current situation benefits.
So let's go back to an economic trading area and cut out all the political sh*t.
Comments
And experience since has shown us that if anything they have been dramatically underplayed.
The govt would undoubtedly capitulate and order officials to stop or tone down the inspections.
Even with everything running smoothly, supermarkets run on the basis that occasional random shortages save them money vs. having everything 100% in stock at all times. It's an incredibly fragile setup.
I work for a US company. We shipped 2 pieces of equipment, manufactured in the US, to South America.
They were held up in customs.
For 6 months.
It's just paperwork...
And after 6 months, they allowed 1 item in, and shipped the other back to the US.
But it's just paperwork.
Paperwork slows down everything. if you claim otherwise, you're wrong. Or a liar.
That's why the UK have invested decades of effort in removing non-tariff barriers. To claim that introducing them will have no impact is naive, or stupid.
F1: thoroughly entertaining qualifying, and nice to have a winning tip (offered early, so it doesn't count in the records).
If you want a more personal example, try buying stuff from the US on Ebay.
Ebay operates a Global shipping program, where they handle all of the import duties, so there are no non-tariff barriers to you, the consumer.
Not every seller participates though.
Buy something from a seller who participates, and one who doesn't, see which arrives first, see which one requires more paperwork, then stop claiming non-tariff barriers have no impact.
I guess Brexiteers are immune to market forces.
As regards Tony, I think one of the reasons his stock has fallen so low is that he has refused to accept Iraq was a mistake. Even now, I think if he showed more contrition, then people might be more forgiving. He has been remarkably unrepentant, even intransigent.
As you describe yourself as "a generally loyal Blairite", I'd be interested in your views as to University tuition fees now. You clearly voted for them in your days as an MP. Do you regret that now?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-kezia-dugdale-10804084
We won't have any problems, unless the EU set out to punish us (& themselves) with a trade war.
But they have repeatedly said they have no intention of punishing us for leaving, so that won't be a problem.
I agree that left of centre parties should have some kind of ideological underpinning. To my now more charitable mind, parts of the Blairite agenda feel like he was fumbling towards a more coherent liberal stance. I think that it's a shame for the UK that Blair's successors didn't attempt to push on towards the Orange Book liberalism that Blairism could have easily become.
As for Corbyn, obviously his ideals aren't mine, but I'm not convinced that he's quite as purely idealistic as you paint him to be. The stance that Labour has taken on tuition fees seems like quite a grubby piece of political positioning to me and certainly not a policy that can be squared with progressive, redistributive politics.
Still a class above anyone else on the field, though.
I just hope they make their minds up quickly on the penalty.
I don't actually worry that much about us leaving the EU without a deal, because they need one every bit as much as we do. I do worry that we're failing to replicate any of the EU's existing agreements.
Not sure people appreciate the current situation benefits.
NEW THREAD
Sorry about your foiled Raikkonen bonanza, though.
So let's go back to an economic trading area and cut out all the political sh*t.
I think you would get a majority for that.
This really is just a process question with a 2 year sunset clause. It's not ideal but doesn't create a precedent