20silkcut wrote: » If such solutions existed then shops and supermarkets wouldn’t need checkouts and we would see such technology in action everyday.
Strazdas wrote: » That report was highly speculative and theoretical. Trade experts who read it said it was full of 'ifs', 'buts' and 'maybes' and extremely unlikely ever to work in real life. The British right wing press and the hard Brexiteers seized on it though and claimed for a year afterwards that it was the solution to all the Irish border problems.
judeboy101 wrote: » Amazon have stores in america with no checkout
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » It just shows how much Sterling has dropped. Seeing as how they are in the business they probably in it for the long haul. Whatever happens after Brexit planes will still fly. It's just that UK carriers will have some disadvantages compared to EU and US carriers.
A bilateral EU-UK agreement regulating advanced customs cooperation avoiding duplication and with possibility to carry out tasks on each other ; Mutual recognition of Authorised Economic Operators (AEO); A Customs-to-Customs technical agreement on exchange of risk data; Pre-registration of Operators (AEO) and People (Trusted Commercial Travellers programme in combination with a Certified Taxable Person programme); Identification system by the border; A Single Window with one-stop-shop-elements; A Unique Consignment reference number (UCR); Simplified Customs declaration system (100% electronic) with re-use of export data for imports; Mobile Control and Inspection Units; Technical surveillance of the border (CCTV, ANPR etc).
RobMc59 wrote: » As you point out sterling has dropped since 2016 but it's questionable French investors sunk billions into an airport thinking it may be able to make a profit down the line if planes are allowed to fly in and out of the UK. Personally I'm hoping the UK comes to its senses but there are a myriad of scenarios apart from the absolute worst case some seem only to see. I think May's deal will be rejected unless the EU ride to her rescue (it might be in their interest to help her get that deal over the line) and there is a 2nd vote and how that goes is anyone's bet.
BlitzKrieg wrote: » So a smart border is impossible in a hard brexit scenario
prawnsambo wrote: » The French buyers said they were surprised that they could purchase it for a significantly lesser sum than the 20 times earnings they would have normally expected. In other words, they got a substantial bargain.
LeinsterDub wrote: » A smart border is impossible regardless of the kind of Brexit. Smart borders require cameras and scanners etc. It's not possible to do so at over 300 crossings and it's debatable that such infrastructure would survive a week.
10000maniacs wrote: » If there is a hard Brexit or no backstop, that would mean cancelling the Good Friday Agreement in its current form. Which Irish party in their right mind would take on the political responsibility of doing that?
RobMc59 wrote: » That maybe the case but it's unlikely they bought a controlling share thinking UK airports will be paralysed after 29th March-don't forget,if the armageddon scenerio comes to pass who knows what may happen-the UK may freeze all EU assets in a bizarre tit for tat squabble.
he EU has agreed to allow flights from the UK on a temporary basis until proper certification is in place or for nine months
trellheim wrote: » Umm... that's a proposal in the event of a no-deal, not an agreement unless you can point me at something ? . In the current no-deal guidance its point-to-point only and its only a proposal, you need more than that !
prawnsambo wrote: » Well we do know what will happen. The EU has agreed to allow flights from the UK on a temporary basis until proper certification is in place or for nine months. All of the worst case scenarios are temporary in any case. It's just going to be more expensive for the UK because of having to take all that bureaucracy in house instead of outsourcing it to the EU. So for the French investors, they may take a hit in earnings for a year or so, but they've still got themselves a bargain.
RobMc59 wrote: » And who would deny them that?-There's only the misguided souls(people like JRM and co)who have a ridiculous 19th century British empire attitude to all this-its the same with passports being produced by France and the dredging of ramsgate by the dutch-if they're the most competitive or have the expertise that's how it should be. By the way I hope all this is irrelevant as the UK stays in the EU.
prawnsambo wrote: » Likewise. But they seem to be slow walking themselves (yourself ) over a cliff. At some point, somebody should point out how much this shambles has cost so far, how much it's going to cost in the future with the duplication of all the things the EU used to do for the UK and balance it against the contribution payments. I'm betting that the EU system is cheaper. And better.
Gerry T wrote: » I don't get the tit for tat comment. Do you not mean tat for tat ? The UK pulls out of the EU aviation and safety authority and It doesn't have it's own. So it causes a massive problem for UK airlines. And the answer to this, freeze assets it has in the EU Now most people would say that's just feckin crazy, shot yourself in the foot and fix that by cutting of your arm Or have I taken you up wrong ?
BlitzKrieg wrote: » the whole smart border 2.0 point is fine. But it requires that the EU/UK have a comprehensive trade deal first. It says as much in that paper as the first and foremost requirement.
10000maniacs wrote: » If there is a hard Brexit or no backstop, that would mean cancelling the Good Friday Agreement in its current form.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » Why not, it's perfectly possible.
LeinsterDub wrote: » You know some of these border crossing are basically planks of wood over a steam? How do you propose these cameras and infrastructure are protected?
cml387 wrote: » I would really like to sit down and have a congenial glass of wine with Mr Clarke, he seems like a most companionable person.
Why not, it's perfectly possible.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » What makes you think that. Please use actual quotes from the Agreement instead of claiming that it's somehow inherent though unsaid.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » Those are unlikely to be counted among the crossing points on the Smart Border 2.0 because they would not have large volumes of goods crossing there. Of course, the EU might insist on manning the border for phytosanitary purposes but that would be its decision.
