nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread III

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for discussing the departure of the UK from the EU. I will move some posts over shortly.

New posters, please read the forum charter before posting.

Regards,

The Politics Mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

seamus

josip wrote: »

If it had to be an open tender then is this statement in the article incorrect?

Probably. It's most likely deliberately misleading to get a soundbite.

French passports are produced by a state-run company responsible for printing all official documents. So in effect nobody outside (or inside) of France would ever be invited to tender to print passports. How that works under competition law I don't know, but they've probably shoehorned in some data security things there - e.g. as a state company, they have access to verification data that no private company ever legally could.

LeinsterDub

josip wrote: »

That sound like protectionism by another name, especially if not all EU countries apply this principle.

It is. The UK are entitled to enact a similar law if they wanted to or they could of lobbied for the EU regulations to be changed. Much like they could send home EU citizens who can't support themselves .

Nody

Oh but this story just took another turn for fun; Gemalto has a factory in the UK that would most likely produce the passports in Kent. So not only would the jobs remain in the UK they can do it for 50 million less but it's all about those bastard third party French scum who'll steal blank passports and give them out in Calais immigrants apparently and this is why it needs to be with a proper UK company (summary from the Telegraph comment section).

Only to add another source for the above claim of production:
https://twitter.com/PaulJ2303/status/976733090893705217?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2Fblog%2Flive%2F2018%2Fmar%2F22%2Fminister-floats-prospect-of-procurement-rules-changing-after-brexit-after-passport-contract-backlash-politics-live&tfw_creator=AndrewSparrow&tfw_site=guardian

Skedaddle

It's all becoming a bit sad and starting to remind me of the NI "flegs" protests.

When your national pride is entirely about things like the colour of passports, miles on road signs and the technical specifications of 3 pin plugs, it's usually indicative of an identity crisis and lack of confidence.

It's also a rather hilarious and ironic piece of cultural appropriation that the UK has adopted the narrative of countries leaving the British Empire (usually by uprising and against military force) and is applying that to leaving a peaceful, democratic organisation that it voluntarily joined and that has shown no particular resistance to it leaving, other than asking it to tidy up the loose ends.

The whole thing is like a comedy sketch.

Peregrinus

Essentially, the UK has long had a mania for privatisation of public services and, once you privatise a service, it has to be open to all EU service providers on a non-discriminatory basis (there can be exceptions based on national security, etc, but they are narrowly drawn).

If and when the French do privatise their passport production, then other EU bidders can tender for it.

Yet another layer of irony in the comments of Tory ministers about this is that the UK government has made it clear that it wants a strong, broad, deep, etc really good trade deal with the EU post-Brexit. It is absolutely certain that such a deal will include public procurement and competition rules opening UK government contracts to EU bidders (and vice versa, of course). So the UK, having brexitted and recovered the ability to bar foreign tenderers from public contracts, will immediately exercise its newly-taken-back control to surrender that freedom and restore the state of affairs to that which prevailed in the bad old days of enslavement by faceless unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

Econ_

The real irony of the blue British passports is that you can actually have them if you’re in the EU anyway.

It’s a good metaphor for the supposed ‘positives’ of Brexit. ‘Now that we’re leaving we can do.....the things we were already able to do’

josip

Is it also ironic that the UK having a 'mania' for privatisation of services is more compatible with the free movement of services objective of the EU than countries that have more protectionist policies?

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm thinking the impact is going to be slow, steady, and sustained. Not a massive and sudden crash, but a persistent underperformance by the UK economy with a substantial cumulative effect over time.

I agree there will be a sustained slowdown vs. potential growth, but if a lot of British business is simply ignoring Brexit and hoping it'll be all right on the night, there is going to be a short, sharp shock too.

Various boardsies have been saying (for months) "if X doesn't happen before date Y, business will trigger their contingency plans and we'll see bad thing Z".

But if much of British business is ignoring Brexit and has no contingency plans, this kind of thing will not happen. Instead we will pass dates Y, A, B and C whistling happily and finally arrive at some critical date. Maybe Brexit day, maybe the end of the Transition period, maybe a collapse in talks, maybe a collapse of the Government and a new election.

Whatever it is, when this crisis happens, there will be a huge loss of confidence in the UK economy when business finally faces the fact that they really are up the creek, and the Government does not even know what a paddle is.

This could indeed be a massive, sudden crash into a recession.

Enzokk

josip wrote: »

That sound like protectionism by another name, especially if not all EU countries apply this principle.

Seems that some passports are currently printed overseas already. From the independent article there is this quote from the Home Office spokesperson:

“All passports will continue to be personalised with the holder's details in the United Kingdom, meaning that no personal data will leave the UK.

“We do not require passports to be manufactured in the UK. A proportion of blank passport books are currently manufactured overseas, and there are no security or operational reasons why this would not continue.”

So at the moment passport books are printed overseas but the personal information page is added in the UK.

Edited to add: If the UK were looking for protectionism they could add the clause that the passports need to be produced in the UK, but for me they are being prudent and saving their tax payers £50m with this contract. That can go a long way in a country that has to rely on food banks for people to eat.

Peregrinus

As matters stand, if they want to say that the passports must be produced in the UK they need to justify that on national security or other grounds. If the EU Commission isn't happy about that they can haul them into the ECJ and see if the justification stands up.

This issue goes away with Brexit, but it almost certainly returns again if the UK succeeds in making the super-duper trade deal with the EU to which it aspires.

It's amusing to see Brexiters who have been trumpeting nimble, go-ahead global Britain as the answer to all concerns about Brexit turn around and say they would charge British taxpayers an extra fifty million quid in order to avoid letting a government contract go to the damned Frenchies.

Thomas__.

Peregrinus wrote: »

As matters stand, if they want to say that the passports must be produced in the UK they need to justify that on national security or other grounds. If the EU Commission isn't happy about that they can haul them into the ECJ and see if the justification stands up.

This issue goes away with Brexit, but it almost certainly returns again if the UK succeeds in making the super-duper trade deal with the EU to which it aspires.

It's amusing to see Brexiters who have been trumpeting nimble, go-ahead global Britain as the answer to all concerns about Brexit turn around and say they would charge British taxpayers an extra fifty million quid in order to avoid letting a government contract go to the damned Frenchies.

That is all very funny and exposes the stupidity of the many Brexiteers when reality hits them back.

Leroy42

But also, are Brexiteers really saying that under Brexit everything will be more expensive since there will be less competition?

The bid was accepted as it was the lowest, saving the country money. Are UK citizens prepared to pay an extra amount for a UK produced passport? Some of them no doubt, but that is the easiest argument to show people the logical effects of the policy they want.

And why is nobody asking why the UK firms are so of of whack in terms of pricing. They have the same regulations. How does the UK intend to compete with the likes of China and India if they can't even compete with the EU?

demfad

Sand wrote: »

Critics say democracy is voters going for the easy option, for whatever is in their immediate interest. No big picture or vision beyond where their next handout is coming from. We know pollution is killing the planet, but we just want more anyway. I just find the criticism of Brexit, given it was a vote for an idea* greater than where the next handout is coming from to be fascinating in that context.

I know I'm talking to a wall on this point. Brexit voters are idiots. There is nothing to learn. Ignore the vote. More of the same. Okay.

*I don't agree with the idea.

The Brexit campaign played to people's emotions and fears. 'Bring back control' was probably the most astute emotional play. In modern UK (and elsewhere) people feel that the things are outside their control, that they are powerless. Using the perceived remoteness of the EU to associating this feeling of helplessness with membership of a remote, unaccountable EU.
Take back control and you have the power to solve all the other problems, economic and social.
Fears were played on through immigration which tied in with taking back control this time of borders.
Nationalistic emotions were fired up with the EU being portrayed as a domineering empire forcing rules down the UKs throat. With many Britons brought up on Britains past glory and greatness the idea being a perceived 'rule taker' from foreigners including past foes was used to rouse deep nationalism.
With the revelations of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook we now know that these emotions were targetted using information warfare. This is indeed a fascinating point in history, but also a very worrying one indeed.

Skedaddle

Peregrinus wrote: »

As matters stand, if they want to say that the passports must be produced in the UK they need to justify that on national security or other grounds. If the EU Commission isn't happy about that they can haul them into the ECJ and see if the justification stands up.

This issue goes away with Brexit, but it almost certainly returns again if the UK succeeds in making the super-duper trade deal with the EU to which it aspires.

It's amusing to see Brexiters who have been trumpeting nimble, go-ahead global Britain as the answer to all concerns about Brexit turn around and say they would charge British taxpayers an extra fifty million quid in order to avoid letting a government contract go to the damned Frenchies.

Also the big lie that there was a dichotomy between EU trade and global trade, when they already have both and have the weight of the entire EU to leverage trade deals. That still goes largely unchallenged by most of the UK media who just parrot the line over and over.

It's very hard to make any kind of arguments in an environment that's 90% rhetoric and 10% facts.

So far, as I understand it, they're going for: an open Britian, that will be highly protectionist and very opposed to immigration, with strict border controls that it doesn't want to enforce under any circumstances. Meanwhile, it wants to be a creative and IT hub while continuously pushing towards internet censorship and heavy-handed data retention.

There's no liberal philosophy that I can detect. It's nativism, protectionism and regressive policies wearing the clothes of a party that used to be about economic liberalism. I don't think the Tories really know what they stand for. It seems to be mostly whatever pushes the correct and highly calculated emotional hope and fear triggers to keep them in power.

Who needs a political philosophy, a vision for the economy or an ability to lead when you know exactly how to manipulate enough of the population to keep power?

This isn't like any kind of normal British politics and nothing like the old school Tories either.

Zubeneschamali

I think an interesting point I saw recently, I think on Twitter but someone may have raised it here, is that arguments for Brexit are the exact opposite of the Better Together arguments against Scottish independence.

Brexit arguments are about taking back control, sovereignty and patriotism. When it is pointed out that this will cost an Imperial Ton of cash and will slow the economy, that is not important.

Arguments against Scottish Independence were all about how it would cost the Scots an Imperial Ton of cash and damage their economy, and that sovereignty, local control and patriotism should take a back seat.

A follow on is that the economic costs of Brexit to Scotland mean that the economic arguments are a tie, or maybe even a reason to leave the UK and rejoin the EU, meaning a new Indyref would have control etc on the Indy side and economics as a tie - bye bye UK.

Thomas__.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But also, are Brexiteers really saying that under Brexit everything will be more expensive since there will be less competition?

The bid was accepted as it was the lowest, saving the country money. Are UK citizens prepared to pay an extra amount for a UK produced passport? Some of them no doubt, but that is the easiest argument to show people the logical effects of the policy they want.

And why is nobody asking why the UK firms are so of of whack in terms of pricing. They have the same regulations. How does the UK intend to compete with the likes of China and India if they can't even compete with the EU?

Brexiters don't think that far, like their FS, they're stuck in the past and for BoJo it is all 1930s and 1940s all over again (just thinking about his recent rhetoric).

josip

Enzokk wrote: »

Edited to add: If the UK were looking for protectionism they could add the clause that the passports need to be produced in the UK, but for me they are being prudent and saving their tax payers £50m with this contract. That can go a long way in a country that has to rely on food banks for people to eat.

You're not taking the multiplier effect into account.

http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Managing_the_economy/The_multiplier_effect.html

Sometimes it can make more macro economic sense to pay more for domestically produced goods and services.

Akrasia

I have to say I laughed at the fisheries protesters the other day, protesting to demand that foreign fishing vessels should not be allowed access to UK fisheries while also demanding that UK fishermen be allowed to retain 'fair access' to EU fisheries.

What do we want??
Foreign Fishermen out!
What else do we want??
Access to foreign fisheries!

gimli2112

watching some tory nitwit on Sky debating the loss of British passport production to the EU is funny, cringeworthy and a little horrifying

ancapailldorcha

gimli2112 wrote: »

watching some tory nitwit on Sky debating the loss of British passport production to the EU is funny, cringeworthy and a little horrifying

No more name calling please. This is a forum for serious discussion.

gimli2112

yeah ok it's just bizarre the importance they're placing on this kind of stuff. I just don't understand the mindset I guess.

Sam Russell

Akrasia wrote: »

I have to say I laughed at the fisheries protesters the other day, protesting to demand that foreign fishing vessels should not be allowed access to UK fisheries while also demanding that UK fishermen be allowed to retain 'fair access' to EU fisheries.

What do we want??
Foreign Fishermen out!
What else do we want??
Access to foreign fisheries!

One single Dutch trawler has 23% of the UK fishery catch, and it does not unload the catch in the UK, but rather in the Nederlands.

Really Interested

Peregrinus wrote: »

Essentially, the UK has long had a mania for privatisation of public services and, once you privatise a service, it has to be open to all EU service providers on a non-discriminatory basis (there can be exceptions based on national security, etc, but they are narrowly drawn).

If and when the French do privatise their passport production, then other EU bidders can tender for it.

Yet another layer of irony in the comments of Tory ministers about this is that the UK government has made it clear that it wants a strong, broad, deep, etc really good trade deal with the EU post-Brexit. It is absolutely certain that such a deal will include public procurement and competition rules opening UK government contracts to EU bidders (and vice versa, of course). So the UK, having brexitted and recovered the ability to bar foreign tenderers from public contracts, will immediately exercise its newly-taken-back control to surrender that freedom and restore the state of affairs to that which prevailed in the bad old days of enslavement by faceless unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=200403&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=735146

I have not read decision yet but in effect I believe it says a states own printing service does not save it from having to tender including passport services.

Really Interested

Sam Russell wrote: »

One single Dutch trawler has 23% of the UK fishery catch, and it does not unload the catch in the UK, but rather in the Nederlands.

http://theconversation.com/fact-check-is-80-of-uk-fish-given-away-to-the-rest-of-europe-39966

So can you link to proof that 23% of “UK fishery catch” in fact that claim does not add up! As only UK registered boats can catch UK Quota. Do people not even read the claims they find.

BTW the largest fishing vessel registered in Holland used tone the Irish Registered Athlantic Dawn. http://www.thejournal.ie/annelies-ilena-atlantic-dawn-ireland-coast-1886452-Jan2015/

Akrasia

Sam Russell wrote: »

One single Dutch trawler has 23% of the UK fishery catch, and it does not unload the catch in the UK, but rather in the Nederlands.

Maybe, but as part of the EU the UK negotiates fishing quotas for its fishing industry, they negotiate the best terms from a position of power within tge EU. Outside the EU they'll have no access unless they allow a reciprocal agreement for EU trawlers to fish their waters, much like Norway has.

Gerry T

Really Interested wrote:

So can you link to proof that 23% of â€œUK fishery catchâ€ in fact that claim does not add up! As only UK registered boats can catch UK Quota. Do people not even read the claims they find.

I heard this also on a radio programme, but the interesting fact proposed was UK boats catch fish that's sold to the EU and the EU (minus UK) boats sell their catch into the UK. Has to do with where these boats fish (deep v's shallow waters) and taste preferences of those catches. But the circa 23% from a single boat was mentioned

Really Interested

Gerry T wrote: »

I heard this also on a radio programme, but the interesting fact proposed was UK boats catch fish that's sold to the EU and the EU (minus UK) boats sell their catch into the UK. Has to do with where these boats fish (deep v's shallow waters) and taste preferences of those catches. But the circa 23% from a single boat was mentioned

Yes and I assume that boat is the Dutch ship that used to be Irish. It is so big it used to be banned from fishing in EU waters for most of the year. It had to spend 9 months a year fishing off Africa until it was kicked out of there. Funny no one seemed to have issue when a Donegal ship was catching huge amount of EU quota and sucking African waters bare but all changed when it was bought by a Dutch company.

CrabRevolution

I don't get the huge importance placed on fishermen. They've a disproportionately loud voice compared to their size, especially considering the ideas they push.

It's like the steelworkers in the US. It seems that if tariffs cause 3 car manufacturing plant workers to lose their jobs, it's justified if they create 1 more job for a steelworker.

The trump card of "Irexit" arguments is apparently how the EU stole our fish. They effectively propose actions which will benefit at most a few hundred fishermen and a few thousand people with jobs further up the line, but at a cost of hundreds of thousands of other jobs which involve EU membership (pharmaceutical/tech/finance etc.)? How can they keep a straight face when suggesting it?

I'm all for supporting our indigenous fishing industry, but our priorities have to be right.

Kermit.de.frog

The Tories seem to think the Irish attitude is all for show over "the elections"

From 3:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=066LosZ6F-0

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

Nobody is claiming the vote is invalid. What remainers are claiming is that the vote does not give a blank cheque to the government to do whatever it wants. It cannot simply ignore the 48% that voted to remain or assume that every leave vote was on the basis of whatever the cost.

In fairness there were quite large protests the days after the referendum, not against government policy or the government's interpretation of the result, but the actual result itself.