- simplifications for business, such as self-assessment to allow traders to calculate their own customs duties and aggregate their customs declarations;
This bit from the government's paper looks very good (para 35):
we would look to reduce the time and costs of complying with customs administrative requirements through exploring the viability of unilateral measures, primarily in respect of imports, for example:
- simplifications for business, such as self-assessment to allow traders to calculate their own customs duties and aggregate their customs declarations;
In other words put all the burden on business, and then arbitrarily throw the book at a few of them for getting it wrong?
This bit from the government's paper looks very good (para 35):
we would look to reduce the time and costs of complying with customs administrative requirements through exploring the viability of unilateral measures, primarily in respect of imports, for example:
- simplifications for business, such as self-assessment to allow traders to calculate their own customs duties and aggregate their customs declarations;
Domino’s Pizza Enterprises Ltd. thought its online delivery platform could be the pièce de résistance of a strategy to fire up sales in France.
Turns out, the system—used in English-speaking countries such as Australia and New Zealand—had problems dealing with apostrophes, commonly found in French addresses and locations like the Rue de l’Université in Paris. It was also challenged by French slang, resulting in hungry diners being told delivery wasn’t available where they were.
Investors found the confusion hard to stomach on Tuesday when the Sydney-listed company, which licenses the brand from U.S.-based Domino’s Pizza Inc., DPZ 0.54% blamed sluggish performance in France for a lower-than-expected annual profit. Shares fell nearly 19% by late afternoon, wiping more than 800 million Australian dollars (US$628 million) off its market value.
When people ask me where I eat in Paris I tell them I know a simple and unpretentious place just off the Boul' Mich', much frequented by the locals - always a good sign - and with excellent coffee. I do not tell them about the twin golden arches with which it welcomes its patrons.
- simplifications for business, such as self-assessment to allow traders to calculate their own customs duties and aggregate their customs declarations;
AKA the smugglers' charter...
You are getting almost BBC-like in your relentless and childish negativity. No, it's not a smugglers' charter. For a start, you'd almost certainly have to be registered bona-fide trading company to use self-assessment. It's hardly likely that Nissan is going to enter fraudulent customs declarations, is it? Secondly, HMRC don't check every consignment at the moment anyway - far from it. They just check that there is some paperwork. Thirdly, why is it different from VAT, corporation tax, or income tax, all of which work on a self-assessment basis with HMRC doing spot-checks or looking for unusual patterns?
- simplifications for business, such as self-assessment to allow traders to calculate their own customs duties and aggregate their customs declarations;
AKA the smugglers' charter...
This really isn't a new idea, it's quite common...
This bit from the government's paper looks very good (para 35):
we would look to reduce the time and costs of complying with customs administrative requirements through exploring the viability of unilateral measures, primarily in respect of imports, for example:
- simplifications for business, such as self-assessment to allow traders to calculate their own customs duties and aggregate their customs declarations;
In other words put all the burden on business, and then arbitrarily throw the book at a few of them for getting it wrong?
Yes, exactly. A very good method, which crucially means that you don't impose delays at the point of import.
This bit from the government's paper looks very good (para 35):
we would look to reduce the time and costs of complying with customs administrative requirements through exploring the viability of unilateral measures, primarily in respect of imports, for example:
- simplifications for business, such as self-assessment to allow traders to calculate their own customs duties and aggregate their customs declarations;
It's clear there's been some considerable thought put into the document as a whole.
If we're looking at 2021 as the date we leave the Customs Union, then there's lots of time to get a new system together that is also an opportunity to streamline the process for non-EU imports.
For existing regular importers, the paperwork wouldn't be too different to what happens now, and the role of customs staff at ports would be spot checking and searching for contraband, rather than taking a cheque from each lorry driver.
The Government welcomes the clear commitment made in the European Council’s negotiating guidelines and the European Commission’s directives to work with us on “ exible and imaginative” solutions to achieve this.
Flexible, but not that flexible:
The Government has made clear that the answer to avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland cannot be to impose a new customs border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
This in a paper that spends most of its time suggesting that the EU-UK boundary can easily be seamless. If they believe their own rhetoric, putting that boundary in the Irish sea will not do anyone any harm.
Except that the UK is a single country. That would be like putting the boundary between Liverpool and Manchester, albeit that is something some might suggest is a good idea.
Putting the border between Ireland and Great Britain is quite simply admitting to a de facto United Ireland, something that the Tories allies in the DUP might not be happy about. It might have been thought about, but this little birdie ain't gonna fly.
Given some of the reporting - '29% of Remain voters want EU Citizens deported' (sic) - worth reading the report:
While there appear to be few aspects of the negotiations that Leave and Remain voters demand at all cost or reject at all cost, there are aspects of the negotiations that are very important to them. Leave voters are particularly concerned about control over immigration and opposed to deals that give Britain less than “full control” over immigration. They are similarly concerned about legal sovereignty and any “divorce bill”. They also strongly prefer scenarios where EU citizens are able to apply for residence more than scenarios where all must leave. Remain voters care much more about the rights of EU citizens – indeed, no other aspect of the negotiations appears to matter more to them. They also agree with Leave voters that trade terms with fewer barriers and lower tariffs than a “no deal” scenario would bring are preferable to a hard break from the common market. Yet, ultimately, citizens are indifferent about many aspects of Brexit.
It is possibly the worst-reported opinion poll this year. It would be nice to see some of the papers that so woefully misreported it correct themselves, but I expect we'll have a long wait for that.
The Indie actually did - and fessed up to misunderstanding the impact of the non-standard methodology:
James Ball has a lot to answer for here - he seems to have initially published details of the survey on Buzzfeed and various papers lazily picked up highlights from his article.
But it appears that he fell into the trap that the Indie explains. Since he's an Oxford PPE graduate with a diploma in Investigative Journalism, you'd expect a bit better when it comes to critical analysis of surveys!
My old lecturer used to say that PPE is mostly learning how to write as if you know what you're on about.
Not an expert on the pretendy cannibal picnic crowd, but surely as a confessor you can say, you ain't gettin' no absolution until you resign the position which puts you in a position to commit child abuse and report yourself to the secular authorities?
Must go and have a look at Nutty Chappers Twitter... I need a good laugh after a stressful morning.
Not nutty at all. Oakeshot is very vulnerable to the point Chapman mentions .
The hair extensions... ?
Serious politicians don't conduct vendettas against unimportant journalists. And Chapman is a very long way from being a serious politician, however much one might sympathise with his cause.
Not an expert on the pretendy cannibal picnic crowd, but surely as a confessor you can say, you ain't gettin' no absolution until you resign the position which puts you in a position to commit child abuse and report yourself to the secular authorities?
I thought the same exemption to confidentially that the legal profession and the medical profession enjoyed applied to the clergy.
You can break it to prevent harm to yourself and others.
I would have more time for discussion with someone that hasn't been implacably opposed to the Conservatives ever since the referendum result.
I am not implacably opposed to conservatives, or even the Conservatives.
I am implacably opposed to the Brexiteers, whatever badge they hide behind.
Theresa May supported Remain. But she accepted the voice of the people and that makes you implacably opposed. There is simply no point in trying to reconcile the Remainer die-hards. You won't be happy with anything except resubmitting to Brussels so you will twist every event to damn those who won't do that.
Remainer die-hards. The new group of people where we can "hear the sound of flapping white coats"?
Flapping white coats still belong on the Leave side, which can be conveniently divided into the following five groups: the deranged; the malign; the self-deceiving; the thick as mince; and the misled.
Unfortunately we would need four dimensions for the appropriate Venn diagram.
Sounds like the (second?) favourite for leader of the Cons (speaking of his opposition to gay marriage): "I take the whip from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church"
I would have more time for discussion with someone that hasn't been implacably opposed to the Conservatives ever since the referendum result.
I am not implacably opposed to conservatives, or even the Conservatives.
I am implacably opposed to the Brexiteers, whatever badge they hide behind.
Theresa May supported Remain. But she accepted the voice of the people and that makes you implacably opposed. There is simply no point in trying to reconcile the Remainer die-hards. You won't be happy with anything except resubmitting to Brussels so you will twist every event to damn those who won't do that.
Remainer die-hards. The new group of people where we can "hear the sound of flapping white coats"?
Flapping white coats still belong on the Leave side, which can be conveniently divided into the following five groups: the deranged; the malign; the self-deceiving; the thick as mince; and the misled.
Unfortunately we would need four dimensions for the appropriate Venn diagram.
So no thoughtful people could just honestly disagree with you?
Sounds like the (second?) favourite for leader of the Cons (speaking of his opposition to gay marriage): "I take the whip from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church"
We can't have a Papist as Prime Minister, just imagine when he has to recommend to Her Majesty a new candidate for Archbishop of Canterbury or any other Bishopric, it's a constitutional crisis in the making.
Can we trust this fifth columnist who owes his allegiance to Rome?
Plus will the Tory/DUP alliance fall because of Jacob Rees-Mogg?
Sounds like the (second?) favourite for leader of the Cons (speaking of his opposition to gay marriage): "I take the whip from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church"
We can't have a Papist as Prime Minister, just imagine when he has to recommend to Her Majesty a new candidate for Archbishop of Canterbury or any other Bishopric, it's a constitutional crisis in the making.
Can we trust this fifth columnist who owes his allegiance to Rome?
Plus will the Tory/DUP alliance fall because of Jacob Rees-Mogg?
I think they are safe on the bishops thing. Wasn't that what caused the problem in the first place?
I would have more time for discussion with someone that hasn't been implacably opposed to the Conservatives ever since the referendum result.
I am not implacably opposed to conservatives, or even the Conservatives.
I am implacably opposed to the Brexiteers, whatever badge they hide behind.
Theresa May supported Remain. But she accepted the voice of the people and that makes you implacably opposed. There is simply no point in trying to reconcile the Remainer die-hards. You won't be happy with anything except resubmitting to Brussels so you will twist every event to damn those who won't do that.
Remainer die-hards. The new group of people where we can "hear the sound of flapping white coats"?
Flapping white coats still belong on the Leave side, which can be conveniently divided into the following five groups: the deranged; the malign; the self-deceiving; the thick as mince; and the misled.
Unfortunately we would need four dimensions for the appropriate Venn diagram.
So no thoughtful people could just honestly disagree with you?
Convenient.
The EU is a religion for some people and they will be permanently angry at the heretics that reject the one true God. Mercifully for the Conservatives there are extremely few of them on the right hand half of the political spectrum, so they will be more of a problem for Labour than us in time.
She completely recognised what had happened. She came first, but only by a slim margin rather than the big margin that we were all hoping. She recognised the mistakes of the campaigns, admitted responsibility to the party and made changes to both her top team and her leadership style acknowledging that. Since then she has been very effective, had a great G8 and after allowing a period of debate, is now bringing her cabinet together again. The joint article by Liam Fox and Phil Hammond is testament to that.
There are some people that will always castigate every politician supportive of enacting the will of the people on Brexit, but that is what it is. The important thing is to do the right thing and concentrate on the persuadable.
Allowing for the rose or should that be blue-tinted glasses, that's an interesting analysis of the past couple of months.
The day after the election was awful for the Prime Minister and while in time she might have come to recognise her folly, at the time she didn't and made herself look even more arrogant and out of touch than she had in the campaign.
The "changes" were probably forced on her in terms of the sackings of Hill and Timothy and your recollection of a "great G8" doesn't square with my complete lack of recollection. There was some tweet from Trump which said something nice but that was about all I can recall.
As for the Cabinet, off-the-record briefing has been rife and we now have (apparently) a rapprochement between Fox and Hammond though one wonders if that's more of a ploy to form a united front against Davis on the basis "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
I voted LEAVE and I want it to work for the whole of the United Kingdom not just business and the City. I would also have preferred a more inclusive approach but politically that's fine - the people will thank the Conservatives for the Brexit negotiation by throwing them out of office next time. There's little or no place for gratitude.
We can't have a Papist as Prime Minister, just imagine when he has to recommend to Her Majesty a new candidate for Archbishop of Canterbury or any other Bishopric, it's a constitutional crisis in the making.
Can we trust this fifth columnist who owes his allegiance to Rome?
We had one as leader from 2001-2003. Admittedly there was no risk of him becoming PM.
1. "mirroring the EU's requirements for imports from the rest of the world" doesn't sound very take back control-y
It does for a transition period... the key part of the proposal is gaining the ability to commence negotiations with other 3rd countries.
A transitional period is hardly going to be transitional if it; a) changes nothing and therefore just defers the cliff edge, or b) just implements the cliff edge that everyone wanted a transition period to avoid!
I would have more time for discussion with someone that hasn't been implacably opposed to the Conservatives ever since the referendum result.
I am not implacably opposed to conservatives, or even the Conservatives.
I am implacably opposed to the Brexiteers, whatever badge they hide behind.
Theresa May supported Remain. But she accepted the voice of the people and that makes you implacably opposed. There is simply no point in trying to reconcile the Remainer die-hards. You won't be happy with anything except resubmitting to Brussels so you will twist every event to damn those who won't do that.
Remainer die-hards. The new group of people where we can "hear the sound of flapping white coats"?
Flapping white coats still belong on the Leave side, which can be conveniently divided into the following five groups: the deranged; the malign; the self-deceiving; the thick as mince; and the misled.
Unfortunately we would need four dimensions for the appropriate Venn diagram.
So no thoughtful people could just honestly disagree with you?
Convenient.
Thoughtful Eurosceptics like William Hague disagree with me, but they still back Remain.
1. "mirroring the EU's requirements for imports from the rest of the world" doesn't sound very take back control-y
It does for a transition period... the key part of the proposal is gaining the ability to commence negotiations with other 3rd countries.
A transitional period is hardly going to be transitional if it; a) changes nothing and therefore just defers the cliff edge, or b) just implements the cliff edge that everyone wanted a transition period to avoid!
And freest?
Edit: And Nige won't be happy with that. He is already turning as puce as his tie on the news bulletins. So it's not all bad.
1. "mirroring the EU's requirements for imports from the rest of the world" doesn't sound very take back control-y
2. Is that really how you spell freest?
The "position paper" is a dog that didn't bark. It isn't actually a position paper for a negotiation. The EU papers are explicit: we want A, B, C, D, E and F. The language might be firmer for A, B and C than for D, E and F, which are a bit more tentative. So we can read A, B and C as the EU red lines and D, E and F as where they expect to negotiate. The DExEU paper just makes two proposals. The "new customs partnership with the EU" is a wish to make the whole customs issue go away in a burst of common fairy dust, so I think we can dismiss that. The "highly streamlined customs arrangement" isn't a negotiating position. It is a set of suggestions of how to cope if agreement isn't reached. So we have a "position paper" for negotiations that doesn't put forward any serious negotiating positions. Why is that? My guess is that the government's real position is to remain in a customs union with the EU. That possibility is not mentioned at all in the paper, even to reject it.
1. "mirroring the EU's requirements for imports from the rest of the world" doesn't sound very take back control-y
It does for a transition period... the key part of the proposal is gaining the ability to commence negotiations with other 3rd countries.
A transitional period is hardly going to be transitional if it; a) changes nothing and therefore just defers the cliff edge, or b) just implements the cliff edge that everyone wanted a transition period to avoid!
And freest?
Edit: And Nige won't be happy with that. He is already turning as puce as his tie on the news bulletins. So it's not all bad.
Given some of the reporting - '29% of Remain voters want EU Citizens deported' (sic) - worth reading the report:
While there appear to be few aspects of the negotiations that Leave and Remain voters demand at all cost or reject at all cost, there are aspects of the negotiations that are very important to them. Leave voters are particularly concerned about control over immigration and opposed to deals that give Britain less than “full control” over immigration. They are similarly concerned about legal sovereignty and any “divorce bill”. They also strongly prefer scenarios where EU citizens are able to apply for residence more than scenarios where all must leave. Remain voters care much more about the rights of EU citizens – indeed, no other aspect of the negotiations appears to matter more to them. They also agree with Leave voters that trade terms with fewer barriers and lower tariffs than a “no deal” scenario would bring are preferable to a hard break from the common market. Yet, ultimately, citizens are indifferent about many aspects of Brexit.
It is possibly the worst-reported opinion poll this year. It would be nice to see some of the papers that so woefully misreported it correct themselves, but I expect we'll have a long wait for that.
The Indie actually did - and fessed up to misunderstanding the impact of the non-standard methodology:
James Ball has a lot to answer for here - he seems to have initially published details of the survey on Buzzfeed and various papers lazily picked up highlights from his article.
But it appears that he fell into the trap that the Indie explains. Since he's an Oxford PPE graduate with a diploma in Investigative Journalism, you'd expect a bit better when it comes to critical analysis of surveys!
My old lecturer used to say that PPE is mostly learning how to write as if you know what you're on about.
Sounds like the (second?) favourite for leader of the Cons (speaking of his opposition to gay marriage): "I take the whip from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church"
We can't have a Papist as Prime Minister, just imagine when he has to recommend to Her Majesty a new candidate for Archbishop of Canterbury or any other Bishopric, it's a constitutional crisis in the making.
Can we trust this fifth columnist who owes his allegiance to Rome?
Plus will the Tory/DUP alliance fall because of Jacob Rees-Mogg?
I think they are safe on the bishops thing. Wasn't that what caused the problem in the first place?
My guess is that the government's real position is to remain in a customs union with the EU. That possibility is not mentioned at all in the paper, even to reject it.
It is literally the first sentence of the exec summary....
"As we leave the European Union and therefore the EU Customs Union"
EDIT: Also in Para 22 "As we leave the EU we will also leave the EU Customs Union. To achieve our objectives on trading independently with both the EU and the rest of the world, we will need to establish a new customs arrangement with the EU outside of the EU Customs Union."
1. "mirroring the EU's requirements for imports from the rest of the world" doesn't sound very take back control-y
2. Is that really how you spell freest?
The "position paper" is a dog that didn't bark. It isn't actually a position paper for a negotiation. The EU papers are explicit: we want A, B, C, D, E and F. The language might be firmer for A, B and C than for D, E and F, which are a bit more tentative. So we can read A, B and C as the EU red lines and D, E and F as where they expect to negotiate. The DExEU paper just makes two proposals. The "new customs partnership with the EU" is a wish to make the whole customs issue go away in a burst of common fairy dust, so I think we can dismiss that. The "highly streamlined customs arrangement" isn't a negotiating position. It is a set of suggestions of how to cope if agreement isn't reached. So we have a "position paper" for negotiations that doesn't put forward any serious negotiating positions. Why is that? My guess is that the government's real position is to remain in a customs union with the EU. That possibility is not mentioned at all in the paper, even to reject it.
Arguably it's implicit in the paper if you combine the red lines of no hard border in Ireland and no customs border within he UK. Nothing else is realistic.
Must go and have a look at Nutty Chappers Twitter... I need a good laugh after a stressful morning.
Not nutty at all. Oakeshot is very vulnerable to the point Chapman mentions .
The hair extensions... ?
Serious politicians don't conduct vendettas against unimportant journalists. And Chapman is a very long way from being a serious politician, however much one might sympathise with his cause.
So far he has called for the jailing of Boris and others, the exile to Moscow or Siberia of Farage and Carswell, called IDS an idiot, described Robbie Gibb as deranged and hash-tagged Mark Reckless a 'bald nazi'. Straight out of the Trump playbook, but Trump had a party to take over and money and name recognition... what's Chappers got?
Sounds like the (second?) favourite for leader of the Cons (speaking of his opposition to gay marriage): "I take the whip from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church"
We can't have a Papist as Prime Minister, just imagine when he has to recommend to Her Majesty a new candidate for Archbishop of Canterbury or any other Bishopric, it's a constitutional crisis in the making.
Can we trust this fifth columnist who owes his allegiance to Rome?
Plus will the Tory/DUP alliance fall because of Jacob Rees-Mogg?
I think they are safe on the bishops thing. Wasn't that what caused the problem in the first place?
History has shown it gets messy when this country decides to break with Rome, breaking from the Treaty of Rome might be even more messier than in Henry VIII's time.
1. "mirroring the EU's requirements for imports from the rest of the world" doesn't sound very take back control-y
It does for a transition period... the key part of the proposal is gaining the ability to commence negotiations with other 3rd countries.
A transitional period is hardly going to be transitional if it; a) changes nothing and therefore just defers the cliff edge, or b) just implements the cliff edge that everyone wanted a transition period to avoid!
And freest?
Edit: And Nige won't be happy with that. He is already turning as puce as his tie on the news bulletins. So it's not all bad.
My guess is that the government's real position is to remain in a customs union with the EU. That possibility is not mentioned at all in the paper, even to reject it.
It is literally the first sentence of the exec summary....
"As we leave the European Union and therefore the EU Customs Union"
EDIT: Also in Para 22 "As we leave the EU we will also leave the EU Customs Union. To achieve our objectives on trading independently with both the EU and the rest of the world, we will need to establish a new customs arrangement with the EU outside of the EU Customs Union."
Oh dear! It's the THE Customs Union / A Customs Union confusion. Deliberate confusion, as I mentioned downthread. So we will leave THE "Customs Union" and seamlessly move to A customs union. All clear now? Don't worry if it's not!!!
My guess is that the government's real position is to remain in a customs union with the EU. That possibility is not mentioned at all in the paper, even to reject it.
It is literally the first sentence of the exec summary....
"As we leave the European Union and therefore the EU Customs Union"
EDIT: Also in Para 22 "As we leave the EU we will also leave the EU Customs Union. To achieve our objectives on trading independently with both the EU and the rest of the world, we will need to establish a new customs arrangement with the EU outside of the EU Customs Union."
Oh dear! It's the THE Customs Union / A Customs Union confusion. Deliberate confusion, as I mentioned downthread. So we will leave THE "Customs Union" and seamlessly move to A customs union. All clear now? Don't worry if it's not!!!
It's perfectly clear if you engage your brain and read the document at face value rather than projecting your own hysteria onto it...
My guess is that the government's real position is to remain in a customs union with the EU. That possibility is not mentioned at all in the paper, even to reject it.
It is literally the first sentence of the exec summary....
"As we leave the European Union and therefore the EU Customs Union"
EDIT: Also in Para 22 "As we leave the EU we will also leave the EU Customs Union. To achieve our objectives on trading independently with both the EU and the rest of the world, we will need to establish a new customs arrangement with the EU outside of the EU Customs Union."
Oh dear! It's the THE Customs Union / A Customs Union confusion. Deliberate confusion, as I mentioned downthread. So we will leave THE "Customs Union" and seamlessly move to A customs union. All clear now? Don't worry if it's not!!!
1. "mirroring the EU's requirements for imports from the rest of the world" doesn't sound very take back control-y
2. Is that really how you spell freest?
The "position paper" is a dog that didn't bark. It isn't actually a position paper for a negotiation. The EU papers are explicit: we want A, B, C, D, E and F. The language might be firmer for A, B and C than for D, E and F, which are a bit more tentative. So we can read A, B and C as the EU red lines and D, E and F as where they expect to negotiate. The DExEU paper just makes two proposals. The "new customs partnership with the EU" is a wish to make the whole customs issue go away in a burst of common fairy dust, so I think we can dismiss that. The "highly streamlined customs arrangement" isn't a negotiating position. It is a set of suggestions of how to cope if agreement isn't reached. So we have a "position paper" for negotiations that doesn't put forward any serious negotiating positions. Why is that? My guess is that the government's real position is to remain in a customs union with the EU. That possibility is not mentioned at all in the paper, even to reject it.
Arguably it's implicit in the paper if you combine the red lines of no hard border in Ireland and no customs border within he UK. Nothing else is realistic.
I think it is implicit. And I also think it is telling that their third red line of an independent trade policy is not stated as being incompatible with a customs union. Indeed David Davis is saying today that they will pursue trade deals while in the supposedly temporary customs arrangement they want to set up.
What I am not sure is whether the government are internally agreed to go into a customs union or whether they collectively still need to join the dots. They are certainly not admitting to it.
Managed to skim the Future Customs Arrangements documents over lunch - the Racing Post is a bit thin today. A lot of it goes over my head if I'm being honest but I was struck by paragraph 21:
21. Up until we leave the EU, we will continue to be a member of the EU Customs Union and will continue to apply EU law on customs. The rules for the EU Customs Union are governed almost entirely by EU law11 and customs policy is largely an exclusive competence of the EU. Membership of the EU Customs Union means that: ●● goods moving between the UK and other EU Member States are not subject to customs duty, quotas or routine customs processes (including the need to provide customs declarations); and ●● Member States apply the EU’s Common External Tariff (i.e. the same rates of customs duty) and its quotas and customs processes to goods which are moving between the EU and non-EU countries - the EU negotiates trade agreements, including tariffs, on behalf of all Member States.
So when we leave the EU and the Customs Union, we will no longer apply the Common External Tariff because if we negotiate a separate FTA with say Canada, there may not be a tariff (whereas with some countries and some products there may be higher tariffs) ?
Then we have Paragraph 14:
14. We will ensure we protect our businesses from unfair anti-competitive practices. When countries do not play by the rules or take an unfair advantage, we will act swiftly to ensure that trade remains fair and that markets are kept open. We, like many of our partners, believe that providing a safety net for domestic businesses if they suffer harm as a result of unfair trading practices is an important part of supporting the free trade agenda.
How are we going to do this - via the WTO ? What happens if the country involved turns round and slaps big tariffs on UK goods but not on EU goods ?
What was final result? Looks like they overstated the Tories a little and missed the Labour surge.
Given the second is unlikely to be replicated, worstbyou can say is they might slightly overstate the Tory lead in current poll
How far was the Labour surge a last minute phenomena, and how far was it just a revelation of a stronger underlying position after two years of over-corrected polling after 2015? Is there a way we can know that? Remembering that their 13-point lead came after the key moments when a Labour surge / weakening Tory vote would make sense anyway.
What was final result? Looks like they overstated the Tories a little and missed the Labour surge.
Given the second is unlikely to be replicated, worst you can say is they might slightly overstate the Tory lead in current poll
Missing the Conservatives by 3.5% and Labour by 6.5% are in polling terms enormous. No wonders individuals are rightly sceptical about polls if methodologies produce such flawed and inaccurate results.
It's not even as though the poll was conducted a month before the GE - it was two days. Survation and others were seeing the wind was blowing, BMG and others did not.
14. We will ensure we protect our businesses from unfair anti-competitive practices. When countries do not play by the rules or take an unfair advantage, we will act swiftly to ensure that trade remains fair and that markets are kept open. We, like many of our partners, believe that providing a safety net for domestic businesses if they suffer harm as a result of unfair trading practices is an important part of supporting the free trade agenda.
How are we going to do this - via the WTO ? What happens if the country involved turns round and slaps big tariffs on UK goods but not on EU goods ?
The WTO will handle this - assuming that neither the UK or EU has a preferential trade arrangement with this hypothetical country both the UK and EU would be subject to same tariffs under the MFN rules of the WTO.
Sounds like the (second?) favourite for leader of the Cons (speaking of his opposition to gay marriage): "I take the whip from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church"
We can't have a Papist as Prime Minister, just imagine when he has to recommend to Her Majesty a new candidate for Archbishop of Canterbury or any other Bishopric, it's a constitutional crisis in the making.
Can we trust this fifth columnist who owes his allegiance to Rome?
Plus will the Tory/DUP alliance fall because of Jacob Rees-Mogg?
I think it's been constitutionally fine for Catholics to be PM since the Catholic Emancipation Act ? There is some argument as to whether a Catholic PM and/or his/her cabinet might be barred from advising on the appointment of Bishops, but I can't see any resulting constitutional crisis escaping the proverbial teacup
Surely Tory defectors are just as likely as the DUP to bring down a Moggovernment ?
The WTO will handle this - assuming that neither the UK or EU has a preferential trade arrangement with this hypothetical country both the UK and EU would be subject to same tariffs under the MFN rules of the WTO.
Thanks Chris - yet another area where I am forced to flaunt my ignorance safe in the knowledge someone in the PB commentariat will be able to help out.
we will leave THE "Customs Union" and seamlessly move to A customs union.
We will seamlessly move to a A customs union, that doesn't exist, that is being drawn up on the back of a fag packet, that requires 27 other states to agree, and that can be implemented in months by the same team that will take 4 years to repair 1 clock...
we will leave THE "Customs Union" and seamlessly move to A customs union.
We will seamlessly move to a A customs union, that doesn't exist, that is being drawn up on the back of a fag packet, that requires 27 other states to agree, and that can be implemented in months by the same team that will take 4 years to repair 1 clock...
Delusional...
What alternative plan do you propose? Also, what is the EU's proposal?
Oops! Air Berlin filed for insolvency on Tuesday but will remain operating after the German government and Lufthansa stepped in to prevent the collapse of one of Europe’s largest airlines. https://www.ft.com/content/83165178-81b9-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd
I think it's been constitutionally fine for Catholics to be PM since the Catholic Emancipation Act ? There is some argument as to whether a Catholic PM and/or his/her cabinet might be barred from advising on the appointment of Bishops, but I can't see any resulting constitutional crisis escaping the proverbial teacup
Surely Tory defectors are just as likely as the DUP to bring down a Moggovernment ?
By his own words he takes the whip from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.
Huge conflict of interest, we know where his loyalties lie and it isn't to this country or our monarch.
I assume once we leave the EU we can start to burn Catholics again?
we will leave THE "Customs Union" and seamlessly move to A customs union.
We will seamlessly move to a A customs union, that doesn't exist, that is being drawn up on the back of a fag packet, that requires 27 other states to agree, and that can be implemented in months by the same team that will take 4 years to repair 1 clock...
Delusional...
What alternative plan do you propose? Also, what is the EU's proposal?
we will leave THE "Customs Union" and seamlessly move to A customs union.
We will seamlessly move to a A customs union, that doesn't exist, that is being drawn up on the back of a fag packet, that requires 27 other states to agree, and that can be implemented in months by the same team that will take 4 years to repair 1 clock...
Delusional...
To be fair, the 'A customs union' plan would surely be after the 'THE customs union' transition period, so it would be 3-4 years before even this 'temporary' arrangement kicked in.
Chapman has just given a hint that the rally on the 9th of September will be the official launch of the Democrats.
Fun-fact about the formation of Communist Parties around 1920: the most successful were those which were a split off from established parties, the ones which were formed independently tended to die on their arse.
Will the Democrats have built up a substantial base of defectors and a political structure (inc. councillors and MPs) in time for its birth ... or will it die on its arse?
we will leave THE "Customs Union" and seamlessly move to A customs union.
We will seamlessly move to a A customs union, that doesn't exist, that is being drawn up on the back of a fag packet, that requires 27 other states to agree, and that can be implemented in months by the same team that will take 4 years to repair 1 clock...
Delusional...
What alternative plan do you propose? Also, what is the EU's proposal?
Good question.
I'm very sceptical that the EU is going to be interested in a tailor-made customs union, not least because there have already been plenty of smoke signals that there is no interest in a sectoral approach. I expect that the EU will ask Britain whether it wants to be in the customs union or outside it. If it doesn't like the idea of being completely outside the customs union, it knows what it has to do.
That this is not to the liking of the 7/10 intense Leavers is hardly the EU's problem. And the 10/10 intense Leavers will not regard this as a problematic choice.
I don't think anyones looking very good in this exchange.
I have just read the feeds of both side's timelines. Isabel Oakeshott seems reasonable. James Chappers is badly embarrassing himself. Inventing the Liberal Democrats Mark II is surely going to be a damp squib, and who would ever employ him again after what he posts about his previous boss?
I don't think anyones looking very good in this exchange.
I have just read the feeds of both side's timelines. Isabel Oakeshott seems reasonable. James Chappers is badly embarrassing himself. Inventing the Liberal Democrats Mark II is surely going to be a damp squib, and who would ever employ him again after what he posts about his previous boss?
James Chapman is a middle aged man spending his holidays arguing about last years political debates on social media. You don't need babelfish to translate for you what that makes him
I don't think anyones looking very good in this exchange.
I have just read the feeds of both side's timelines. Isabel Oakeshott seems reasonable. James Chappers is badly embarrassing himself. Inventing the Liberal Democrats Mark II is surely going to be a damp squib, and who would ever employ him again after what he posts about his previous boss?
You have to be pretty one-eyed not to think that both of them have let themselves down today. Publicly suggesting that someone is mentally ill isn't classy. Publicly suggesting that someone is an alcoholic isn't classy.
I'm very sceptical that the EU is going to be interested in a tailor-made customs union, not least because there have already been plenty of smoke signals that there is no interest in a sectoral approach. I expect that the EU will ask Britain whether it wants to be in the customs union or outside it. If it doesn't like the idea of being completely outside the customs union, it knows what it has to do.
That this is not to the liking of the 7/10 intense Leavers is hardly the EU's problem. And the 10/10 intense Leavers will not regard this as a problematic choice.
These are all discussions which should have started as soon as Theresa May became PM. It was completely bonkers to leave it until 18 months or even less before we leave, as the EU insisted. At least the UK has a proposal.
In some ways I'm quite encouraged by this. If there's only one proposal on the table, it might happen by default, because it will be too late for our EU friends to do anything else, and certainly too late to put in place customs arrangements for a WTO-only relationship.
Alternatively of course it might all collapse in a smouldering heap. I stand by my 20% probability of this.
O/T - This is fecking hilarious. ANZUK need to become Dominions again.
Australia and New Zealand have become embroiled in an extraordinary diplomatic spat over claims the New Zealand opposition colluded with the Australian Labor party (ALP) in an attempt “to try and bring down the government”.
During a febrile day of politics in both countries, Australia’s foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop, said New Zealand’s opposition party was threatening the stability of a usually robust partnership between the two nations.
She said she would find it “very hard to build trust” if New Zealand’s opposition Labour party were to win the general election in September.
Her comments came only 24 hours after it was revealed that Australia’s deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, held New Zealand citizenship and may be ineligible to sit in parliament under the Australian constitution, which disqualifies dual nationals.
Malcolm Turnbull’s government currently commands a majority of one seat in the House of Representatives.
But Australia’s ruling coalition has now accused the opposition Labor party of planting a question in the New Zealand parliament in order to extract the information about Joyce’s nationality.
Australian government minister Christopher Pyne accused the ALP of being part of a conspiracy to bring down the government.
“Clearly the Labor party are involved in a conspiracy using a foreign government, in this case New Zealand, to try and bring down the Australian government,” he said.
we will leave THE "Customs Union" and seamlessly move to A customs union.
We will seamlessly move to a A customs union, that doesn't exist, that is being drawn up on the back of a fag packet, that requires 27 other states to agree, and that can be implemented in months by the same team that will take 4 years to repair 1 clock...
Delusional...
What alternative plan do you propose? Also, what is the EU's proposal?
Good question.
I'm very sceptical that the EU is going to be interested in a tailor-made customs union, not least because there have already been plenty of smoke signals that there is no interest in a sectoral approach. I expect that the EU will ask Britain whether it wants to be in the customs union or outside it. If it doesn't like the idea of being completely outside the customs union, it knows what it has to do.
That this is not to the liking of the 7/10 intense Leavers is hardly the EU's problem. And the 10/10 intense Leavers will not regard this as a problematic choice.
The problem for the EU is that they have far more interest in ease of customs than we do. Customs only matters for goods, which is their strong point, and not for services, which is ours. Staying in a full customs union is clearly not workable, given the commitment to international trade deals, so a good customs arrangement is the obvious answer.
I'm very sceptical that the EU is going to be interested in a tailor-made customs union, not least because there have already been plenty of smoke signals that there is no interest in a sectoral approach. I expect that the EU will ask Britain whether it wants to be in the customs union or outside it. If it doesn't like the idea of being completely outside the customs union, it knows what it has to do.
That this is not to the liking of the 7/10 intense Leavers is hardly the EU's problem. And the 10/10 intense Leavers will not regard this as a problematic choice.
These are all discussions which should have started as soon as Theresa May became PM. It was completely bonkers to leave it until 18 months or even less before we leave, as the EU insisted. At least the UK has a proposal.
In some ways I'm quite encouraged by this. If there's only one proposal on the table, it might happen by default, because it will be too late for our EU friends to do anything else, and certainly too late to put in place customs arrangements for a WTO-only relationship.
Alternatively of course it might all collapse in a smouldering heap. I stand by my 20% probability of this.
The EU will have a proposal, and that will be the default. It won't quite be take it or leave it, but it won't be far away. My assessment of a smouldering heap is somewhere around 60% at present and rising.
O/T - This is fecking hilarious. ANZUK need to become Dominions again.
It seems to offer the possibility of a lucrative post-Brexit business, whereby we agree to grant UK citizenship to Australian politicians, in return for a modest fee from their enemies.
I don't think anyones looking very good in this exchange.
I have just read the feeds of both side's timelines. Isabel Oakeshott seems reasonable. James Chappers is badly embarrassing himself. Inventing the Liberal Democrats Mark II is surely going to be a damp squib, and who would ever employ him again after what he posts about his previous boss?
You have to be pretty one-eyed not to think that both of them have let themselves down today. Publicly suggesting that someone is mentally ill isn't classy. Publicly suggesting that someone is an alcoholic isn't classy.
I have no dog in this fight as I don't think much of Isabel Oakeshott after the unprofessional piggate mess. The difference is one or two moderately stated comments on her timeline versus a ranting mess on his. The man has ruined his career. It's sad.
we will leave THE "Customs Union" and seamlessly move to A customs union.
We will seamlessly move to a A customs union, that doesn't exist, that is being drawn up on the back of a fag packet, that requires 27 other states to agree, and that can be implemented in months by the same team that will take 4 years to repair 1 clock...
Delusional...
What alternative plan do you propose? Also, what is the EU's proposal?
Good question.
I'm very sceptical that the EU is going to be interested in a tailor-made customs union, not least because there have already been plenty of smoke signals that there is no interest in a sectoral approach. I expect that the EU will ask Britain whether it wants to be in the customs union or outside it. If it doesn't like the idea of being completely outside the customs union, it knows what it has to do.
That this is not to the liking of the 7/10 intense Leavers is hardly the EU's problem. And the 10/10 intense Leavers will not regard this as a problematic choice.
The problem for the EU is that they have far more interest in ease of customs than we do. Customs only matters for goods, which is their strong point, and not for services, which is ours. Staying in a full customs union is clearly not workable, given the commitment to international trade deals, so a good customs arrangement is the obvious answer.
As usual, the word "clearly" is the weak point in the argument. There was nothing on the referendum voting slip about international trade deals.
What is convenient for Britain might well be seen by the EU as a dangerous precedent. My assessment is that they are prepared to put up with a reasonable amount of pain in order to preserve the integrity of the EU's workings. You might well think that is highly unwise or ideological (ironic, given how unwise and ideological most Leavers are), but you don't need to search far to find Eurocrats who feel that way.
Many Leavers remain stuck in the "but the German car manufacturers will insist" frame of mind, despite the abundant evidence that they won't.
Sounds like the (second?) favourite for leader of the Cons (speaking of his opposition to gay marriage): "I take the whip from the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church"
We can't have a Papist as Prime Minister, just imagine when he has to recommend to Her Majesty a new candidate for Archbishop of Canterbury or any other Bishopric, it's a constitutional crisis in the making.
Can we trust this fifth columnist who owes his allegiance to Rome?
Plus will the Tory/DUP alliance fall because of Jacob Rees-Mogg?
I think it's been constitutionally fine for Catholics to be PM since the Catholic Emancipation Act ? There is some argument as to whether a Catholic PM and/or his/her cabinet might be barred from advising on the appointment of Bishops, but I can't see any resulting constitutional crisis escaping the proverbial teacup
Surely Tory defectors are just as likely as the DUP to bring down a Moggovernment ?
I thought this came up with Michael Howard.
It was agreed in advance - if Howard became PM he would nominate another senior Cabinet Minister to handle all Church of England appointments / other issues and that Minister would advise the Queen directly with Howard playing no role.
O/T - This is fecking hilarious. ANZUK need to become Dominions again.
It seems to offer the possibility of a lucrative post-Brexit business, whereby we agree to grant UK citizenship to Australian politicians, in return for a modest fee from their enemies.
No sign of it at the moment, and it's hard to see how they could come up with something in secret. So I'm not sure they will have a proposal, or at least a coherent one which will answer the Irish problem and be worth us paying for.
But who knows? Contrary to what the media keep saying, it's the EU, not the UK, which doesn't seem to know what it wants.
No sign of it at the moment, and it's hard to see how they could come up with something in secret. So I'm not sure they will have a proposal, or at least a coherent one which will answer the Irish problem and be worth us paying for.
But who knows? Contrary to what the media keep saying, it's the EU, not the UK, which doesn't seem to know what it wants.
The UK knows what it wants. Unfortunately that remains having its cake and eating it. That isn't going to be taken seriously.
Comments
https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/897433447454658560
@IanDunt: and all for what? So we can replicate what we have now, except worse. What an unspeakable waste of time.
@IanDunt: A massive political cul-de-sac, taking up years of everyone's attention and skill, for no discernible purpose.
If we're looking at 2021 as the date we leave the Customs Union, then there's lots of time to get a new system together that is also an opportunity to streamline the process for non-EU imports.
For existing regular importers, the paperwork wouldn't be too different to what happens now, and the role of customs staff at ports would be spot checking and searching for contraband, rather than taking a cheque from each lorry driver.
The joke not the coffee.
Melbourne archbishop says he'd rather go to jail than report child abuse heard in confession.
Denis Hart says ‘communication with God is of a higher order’ after child sex abuse inquiry calls for failure to report to become a criminal offence
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/15/melbourne-archbishop-says-hed-rather-go-to-jail-than-report-child-abuse-heard-in-confession?CMP=twt_gu
Serious politicians don't conduct vendettas against unimportant journalists. And Chapman is a very long way from being a serious politician, however much one might sympathise with his cause.
Going through his Tweets is certainly a fun way to spend an hour... But he looks completely nutty to me lol!
I am implacably opposed to the starry-eyed romantics who voted Labour. Are differences of political opinion still allowed in the UK today?
Better targeting needed for Labour, though I guess with the polling situation, a more pessimistic approach was sensible.
You can break it to prevent harm to yourself and others.
Unfortunately we would need four dimensions for the appropriate Venn diagram.
Convenient.
1. "mirroring the EU's requirements for imports from the rest of the world" doesn't sound very take back control-y
2. Is that really how you spell freest?
Can we trust this fifth columnist who owes his allegiance to Rome?
Plus will the Tory/DUP alliance fall because of Jacob Rees-Mogg?
The day after the election was awful for the Prime Minister and while in time she might have come to recognise her folly, at the time she didn't and made herself look even more arrogant and out of touch than she had in the campaign.
The "changes" were probably forced on her in terms of the sackings of Hill and Timothy and your recollection of a "great G8" doesn't square with my complete lack of recollection. There was some tweet from Trump which said something nice but that was about all I can recall.
As for the Cabinet, off-the-record briefing has been rife and we now have (apparently) a rapprochement between Fox and Hammond though one wonders if that's more of a ploy to form a united front against Davis on the basis "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
I voted LEAVE and I want it to work for the whole of the United Kingdom not just business and the City. I would also have preferred a more inclusive approach but politically that's fine - the people will thank the Conservatives for the Brexit negotiation by throwing them out of office next time. There's little or no place for gratitude.
A transitional period is hardly going to be transitional if it; a) changes nothing and therefore just defers the cliff edge, or b) just implements the cliff edge that everyone wanted a transition period to avoid!
Edit: And Nige won't be happy with that. He is already turning as puce as his tie on the news bulletins. So it's not all bad.
But, I think the substantive points are a bit more important..
"As we leave the European Union and therefore the EU Customs Union"
EDIT: Also in Para 22
"As we leave the EU we will also leave the EU Customs Union. To achieve our objectives on trading independently with both the EU and the rest of the world, we will need to establish a new customs arrangement with the EU outside of the EU Customs Union."
Given the second is unlikely to be replicated, worstbyou can say is they might slightly overstate the Tory lead in current poll
https://twitter.com/isabeloakeshott/status/897426443717816321
What I am not sure is whether the government are internally agreed to go into a customs union or whether they collectively still need to join the dots. They are certainly not admitting to it.
Managed to skim the Future Customs Arrangements documents over lunch - the Racing Post is a bit thin today. A lot of it goes over my head if I'm being honest but I was struck by paragraph 21:
21.
Up until we leave the EU, we will continue to be a member of the EU Customs Union and will continue to apply EU law on customs. The rules for the EU Customs Union are governed almost entirely by EU law11 and customs policy is largely an exclusive competence of the EU. Membership of the EU Customs Union means that:
●●
goods moving between the UK and other EU Member States are not subject to customs duty, quotas or routine customs processes (including the need to provide customs declarations); and
●●
Member States apply the EU’s Common External Tariff (i.e. the same rates of customs duty) and its quotas and customs processes to goods which are moving between the EU and non-EU countries - the EU negotiates trade agreements, including tariffs, on behalf of all Member States.
So when we leave the EU and the Customs Union, we will no longer apply the Common External Tariff because if we negotiate a separate FTA with say Canada, there may not be a tariff (whereas with some countries and some products there may be higher tariffs) ?
Then we have Paragraph 14:
14.
We will ensure we protect our businesses from unfair anti-competitive practices. When countries do not play by the rules or take an unfair advantage, we will act swiftly to ensure that trade remains fair and that markets are kept open. We, like many of our partners, believe that providing a safety net for domestic businesses if they suffer harm as a result of unfair trading practices is an important part of supporting the free trade agenda.
How are we going to do this - via the WTO ? What happens if the country involved turns round and slaps big tariffs on UK goods but not on EU goods ?
Colleagues been asked to go easy on @jameschappers as he's 'not well.' I know he will turn on me, but it's time someone stood up to this.
--
Why?
Why go easy on him?
What is it they're afraid he'll say?
And why demean yourself with a mental health smear?
Isabel's clearly smart, but I'm not sure she's smart enough to know when to shut up.
It's not even as though the poll was conducted a month before the GE - it was two days. Survation and others were seeing the wind was blowing, BMG and others did not.
There is some argument as to whether a Catholic PM and/or his/her cabinet might be barred from advising on the appointment of Bishops, but I can't see any resulting constitutional crisis escaping the proverbial teacup
Surely Tory defectors are just as likely as the DUP to bring down a Moggovernment ?
Delusional...
Air Berlin filed for insolvency on Tuesday but will remain operating after the German government and Lufthansa stepped in to prevent the collapse of one of Europe’s largest airlines.
https://www.ft.com/content/83165178-81b9-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd
Huge conflict of interest, we know where his loyalties lie and it isn't to this country or our monarch.
I assume once we leave the EU we can start to burn Catholics again?
https://twitter.com/profchalmers/status/897441056454823936
Will the Democrats have built up a substantial base of defectors and a political structure (inc. councillors and MPs) in time for its birth ... or will it die on its arse?
I'm very sceptical that the EU is going to be interested in a tailor-made customs union, not least because there have already been plenty of smoke signals that there is no interest in a sectoral approach. I expect that the EU will ask Britain whether it wants to be in the customs union or outside it. If it doesn't like the idea of being completely outside the customs union, it knows what it has to do.
That this is not to the liking of the 7/10 intense Leavers is hardly the EU's problem. And the 10/10 intense Leavers will not regard this as a problematic choice.
Oh the bitterness of the losers... you're all rich, pay for private therapy don't embarrass yourselves in public
In some ways I'm quite encouraged by this. If there's only one proposal on the table, it might happen by default, because it will be too late for our EU friends to do anything else, and certainly too late to put in place customs arrangements for a WTO-only relationship.
Alternatively of course it might all collapse in a smouldering heap. I stand by my 20% probability of this.
Australia and New Zealand have become embroiled in an extraordinary diplomatic spat over claims the New Zealand opposition colluded with the Australian Labor party (ALP) in an attempt “to try and bring down the government”.
During a febrile day of politics in both countries, Australia’s foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop, said New Zealand’s opposition party was threatening the stability of a usually robust partnership between the two nations.
She said she would find it “very hard to build trust” if New Zealand’s opposition Labour party were to win the general election in September.
Her comments came only 24 hours after it was revealed that Australia’s deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, held New Zealand citizenship and may be ineligible to sit in parliament under the Australian constitution, which disqualifies dual nationals.
Malcolm Turnbull’s government currently commands a majority of one seat in the House of Representatives.
But Australia’s ruling coalition has now accused the opposition Labor party of planting a question in the New Zealand parliament in order to extract the information about Joyce’s nationality.
Australian government minister Christopher Pyne accused the ALP of being part of a conspiracy to bring down the government.
“Clearly the Labor party are involved in a conspiracy using a foreign government, in this case New Zealand, to try and bring down the Australian government,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/15/australia-accuses-new-zealand-opposition-bring-down-government
What is convenient for Britain might well be seen by the EU as a dangerous precedent. My assessment is that they are prepared to put up with a reasonable amount of pain in order to preserve the integrity of the EU's workings. You might well think that is highly unwise or ideological (ironic, given how unwise and ideological most Leavers are), but you don't need to search far to find Eurocrats who feel that way.
Many Leavers remain stuck in the "but the German car manufacturers will insist" frame of mind, despite the abundant evidence that they won't.
It was agreed in advance - if Howard became PM he would nominate another senior Cabinet Minister to handle all Church of England appointments / other issues and that Minister would advise the Queen directly with Howard playing no role.
It was agreed there was no problem.
https://twitter.com/MartinHoscik/status/897458416335114240
But who knows? Contrary to what the media keep saying, it's the EU, not the UK, which doesn't seem to know what it wants.